Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Taking Sides: Pornography Vs Erotica

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I have indeed gone thread-mad.

Inspired by what I can see Pete typing a foot to my right - high-class porn? There have been many attempts to make 'erotica' respectable and fashionable - often talking about making it appealing to couples or women as well as to men. Eg. nerve.com, Helmut Newton and other Taschen favourites, the 'Erotic Review' etc. etc. Is there a difference between porn and erotica? Or is it just a high/middle/lowbrow thing?

― Tom, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is Pornography Madonna's new album then? Or - more excitingly - is its Britney's brave attempt to move in a new (admittedly gyrating) direction.

― Pete, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Porn debases its subject. Erotica celebrates sex. Yadda yadda. That's the standard line, isn't it? I suppose that's a good position to start from. But this approach is easily satrised and turned into an "Ooh - it's just a class thing. How come Corot paintings are allowed and Page 3 is to be deplored you nasty little ponces" position. Or, cf. Chris Morris making that Obscene Publications Act officer's criteria look stupid and arbitrary on Brass Eye the other night.

― Nick, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Bloody hell. I have a feeling that answering these questions is going to incriminate me one way or another.

One thing I would suggest: there is a 'cultural' aspect to desire - I mean, some things are more erotically appealing [to observer x] because of their particular connotations. Desire and sexuality are about Idea and Meaning (even about Narrative) as well as about raw bodily process.

Where that gets me is to say that it might be *worthwhile* having disctinctions between different kinds of erotic material, because some people might find more classy stuff (for instance) *much more erotic* than, I don't know, the Daily Star. So I am kind of finding myself defending the idea of 'upmarket erotica', which is very strange, because I have never really experienced it, honest guv, at least as far as I can remember.

― the pinefox, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Surely no one on earth takes the term 'erotica' seriously

― Mark Morris, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Anais Nin did.

― nathalie (nathalie), Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What do autopsy films count as

― dave q, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Hmmm, a good question, which I have no intention of answering as it's all porn dude!...Momentarily satisfying but ultimately disappointing.

― jel, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Erotica = dull, soft-core with pretensions. Often with unattractive models, to boot.

On the other hand, porn can be = disgusting (in terms of the models, the acts portrayed, and appurtenances used therein).

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Some pornography is the reult of women being in a compromised situation in life and thus is nothing to be happy about. Sex slaves and the like. But in theory I guess erotic entertainment is good happy fun.

― Mike Hanley, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I have no use for airbrushed softcore supermodel porn. Which ties in to my Grand Theory of Everything somehow. Oooh baby I like it raw.

Possible category confuser: Richard Kern.

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Porn vs Erotica = defined by current production values (or lack thereof), commercial intent, and societal shame factor upon purchase. Aside from that, it's all just the same t&a, depending on where the lense is focused.

― Jason, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Richard Kern's HardCore Collection DVD didn't work. I think it was a prank: During the Thirwell and Lunch action the image just froze!

― nathalie (nathalie), Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

With porn i do not notice the medium at least at first( ie the quailty of photography, film or text); with erotica i do not notice the sex at least at first. It is a thin line. I think the main differnce is Erotica concerns sex as a dish in a smorgasboard.

― anthony, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What other dishes are there in the smorgasbord? (I recall Gary Indiana in the 80s reviewing gay photo-porn in terms of the semiotics of the interior decor and yuppie accessories = v.funny, as he is a Sour Old Queen... Also taking note of the difft names the same model appeared by in difft shoots and, well, mise-en-scenes, as Gilbert Adair wd say.)

― mark s, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Other dishes.

Two kinds either literally. So innavative imagry, effective use of metaphor, tone and symbolism

Or the condiment school, where Erotica is used like horseradish on roast beef. Like David Wojarnkwizs (sp)Close to the Knives (ie AIDS fear and politics. )

― anthony, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The sventies made the best porns becasue they are the weirdest. By the eighties and nineties directores were just showing tons of fake tit lesbo eat outs and its a drag. The seventies had plots and odd acting and weird grainy sights to behold.

― Mike Hanley, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I was at Tonic the other night to see Steve Bernstein's Millenial Territory Orchestra (the best unrecorded band in the universe, but that's another story) and Steve introduced each member of the band via a different bizarre moniker. The guitar player was introduced as "the only person in the band young enough to never have seen porn on film".

― Dave M., Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Seems that both porn and erotica both aim for the same biological destination, but the latter simply takes a detour through the brain. Because of course, porn is far too impatient for such fussiness and travels as the crow flies. But, isn't it sometimes more rewarding to take the road less travelled?

― Kim, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

One thing I totally, absolutely, have never gotten about porn is why, in the 'ethical debate', do people never mention the ACTUAL girls involved, only the effect? I can't ever forget them, like the whole time I'm watching a crap music video on TV with bikini girls gyrating around a few creepy musicians I'm thinking about what it would 'really have been like' for the girls and thinking, 'why don't you KICK that guy?' But then I've read 'Ordeal' by Linda Lovelace. I reckon that was one of the best books I ever read. I read it all from start to finish at once. I think it's very important. Has anyone else read that book? And as far as I'm concerned , the only difference to erotica is that maybe sometimes in porn girls actually get physically hurt instead of just psychologically. I wish we were still polite! Why do people emphasise the 'naturalness' of sexuality so much and not the naturalness of a need for privacy?

― maryann, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

nothing and everything are natural

― Mike Hanley, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

If guys think about the girls at the same time they think about the sex, then they get turned off. Which kills the point.

― Sterling Clover, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I can sympathise with that in the ideal sense, the idea of human bodies in porn appealing on an anonymous, facelessly universal level, but is that the reality? Take a sample of 'average' porn, and donuts to dollars, you will have a lot of disembodied male body parts featured, but the women? The women are shown in entirety. They have faces, and eyes that are looking at you. They are not anonymous. Yet, it's beside the point to be considerate of them? Is it really? I think that's not entirely true, because there SHE is. Why is she there? Why is she humanised? Obviously, the real point then, is not to avoid consideration of her, but instead to be deliberately INCONSIDERATE of her. Whole other ball of wax. This is where porn CAN become sexist, because it's no longer just about the sex.

I'd like to qualify all of that by noting that I'm not saying that all porn is inherently bad, or that the power aspect is always skewed to the detriment of the woman, or that a man can't be exploited, and I haven't touched on gay porn at all... it's just a commentary on one aspect that seems to be particularly problematic for a lot of people.

― Kim, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

actually i hope this thread grows becasue this issue bothers me. I mean I woudl hate to think my enjoyment of T and A is the result of messed up women's lives, you know?

― Mike Hanley, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Unf. it probably IS the result of such. But, I mean...

― Sterling Clover, Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The negative psychological impact of porn on the women involved is rather difficult to deny. Personally, I try not to contribute to the problem by never *paying* for porn. They can hardly be prostituting themselves to me if I never pay for it. Besides, if it's just a fun, natural thing, ie. several people's description of the role of sex in 'erotica', shouldn't people want to do it for free?

― Dave M., Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

intersting arguement you cheapskate!

― Mike Hanley, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Does Porn demean women? 20 yrs ago, probably yes. Now? Depends on which porn (ie, porn by women, sometimes soley for women). As for gay porn, it's often more pro-worker than hetero as the pay is better.

― Jason, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Their are gay sex workers who are workign on getting SAG cards.

― anthony, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's not a real constructive thing to say, but, I FUCKING DESPISE PORNOGRAPHY.

― duane, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Also it's not even answering the question. I don't even know what erotica is, or where the boundaries of what is acceptable are, or acceptable to who, or whatever the fuck. But the whole business sucks. I hate "enlightened" "modern" attitudes to this kind of shit.

― duane, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I hate prudes . We as humans have depicted fucking since the begining of art and writing. Sexuailty needs to be let through. Not only as a vehicle for orgasm but as a way to document a peice of our exsitence. We live in a world where tawdy porn fills that role.

― anthony, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

anthony is the most human poster on this forum. also, quite poss. my favorite.

― ethan, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

yeah, anybody who hates pornography is obviously a robot. See, Mike Hanley? See? I was only being pragmatic when I said people always say it's natural, not philosophical. People say it every minute.

― maryann, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i feel all warm and fuzzy ethan.

― anthony, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But what's more 'unnatural', getting turned on by pain or by inanimate objects ('disembodied parts')?
I recall this book 'Women & Chainsaws'(?), apparently a feminist analyses of slasher films, claiming that people watched them in masochistic fashion, imagining themselves to be the VICTIM and not the murderer for the delicious frisson. Maybe some men watch hardcore gangbang films and some part of them identifies with the woman involved. Well, the woman seem less pathetic than the drooling men standing around them masturbating while waiting their turn.

― dave q, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Their is a reading of Tess of The Dubervilles that say it is a protypical slash film.
I think that one of the functions of porn is to examine power dynamics. One of those is domantion and submission.

― anthony, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i wonder if consent is an issue here...

― Geoff, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

of course .

― anthony, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

A) stating the obvious: fantasies aren't wrong, actions are.

B)Just saw Polanski's Tess. I don't think it was *intended* as a slash dynamic in the novel, but the film certainly makes the case. Except that the power dynamics aren't about sex at all, but rather about class & the destruction of the aristocracy is an actual historic process, wheras I think that the porn version uses class as an ave. to sex (rather than v. versa) and further does not correspond to an actually occuring historic process. Tess is of course more complex than this, and porn fliks probably less so.

Back to the orig. question w/r/t high/low/middlebrow, I suspect that "erotica" tends to be more twisto than run-of-the-mill porn, what with leather and S&M and suchforth.

― Sterling Clover, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is S&M/violent porn a satire of capitalism, or proof of capitalism's ultimate victory in every sphere?

― dave q, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

your gonna have to expand that theroy james.
BTW Polanski has only made sexy slash/snuff films. Its what hes good at it.

― anthony, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

SNuff films where women are actually killed? SO these exist? Is gay porn as destructive as hetero porn?

― Mike Hanle y, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'Silent Scream' was the best paedo-snuff ever

― dave q, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

explain

― Mike Hanle y, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

From all of the reading I've done, no such thing as a "snuff" film has been found. It's an urban legend.

A lot of things "demean" women, or both men *and* women, for that matter. I don't think pornography is any more insulting, and probably less so, than advertising or glossy mags. I have a bigger problem with ridiculous and obvious airbrushing than plain ol' T & A. And if we're worried about how people are treated in certain industries, well, don't buy *anything*. Porn itself doesn't bother me. It used to bother me that there was all of this stuff "for men" and little of it "for women", but then I realized that most of it doesn't excite me all that much, anyway. And I don't feel comfortable using that word erotica - I guess I instinctively sense the class implications of that and feel pretentious using it.

― Kerry, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh, and "Silent Scream" (a notorious anti-abortion propaganda film) - I read that it was *faked*. That was a while ago - I'll try to dig up the info.

― Kerry, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'Snuff films' - no 'genuine' ones known to have surfaced, unless you count mondo doc genre with 'real' footage of human/animal slaughter, but considering humanity's desire to film just about everything else, would be v. surprised if someone somewhere hasn't been murdered on film. 'Killing for Culture', written by ? and ? and published by Creation, has all the info (and tons of v. boring plot recaps.)

― Andrew L, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

there are numerous revolting Japanese movies about the tortue of women. very gory and awful (Guinea Pig) . Who watches these? I was VERy disturbed and never thought of Japan as cute again. I think some "porn " can be entertainment/art but sometimes there is foul play. Like any industry I guess. I'm sure allot of bands feel "used" by the music industry and wouldn't have done it if they werent messed up in the head

― Mike Hanley, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

It's just that the whole "snuff films" thing surfaced here (the US) as part of the unholy alliance between anti-porn feminists and right-wing fundamentalists in the late 70s and early 80s. There was this horror film in the seventies called "Snuff" in which a (fictional) actress was "killed" on camera, and the whole thing spun out of control from there. People were claiming that this was a legitimate sub-genre of porn. I think Linda Williams talks about this "snuff" scare in her book _Hard Core_ - there are other books that address this as well.

― Kerry Keane, Monday, 30 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Is there any critical theory to help determine what's a 'good' snuff film and what's a 'bad' one?

― dave q, Tuesday, 31 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Do you think this would be a good movie title - Lesbians Need Sperm?

― duane, Tuesday, 31 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

three years pass...
http://www.beautfiulagony.com

is it porn or art or erotica? or all three?

it's clearly great. too expensive for me though.

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Thursday, 27 January 2005 03:49 (twenty-one years ago)

four months pass...
i just attended Erotica LA...for work! I met Tera Patrick! This was in many respects a career goal, all things considered. I didn't think it deserved it's own thread though, but just thought I would share.

― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Wednesday, 15 June 2005 01:06 (twenty years ago)

Whatever this is, I choose it:

http://www.bosomquest.com/pt=mip2247/colt45/images/ndx_04.gif

― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Wednesday, 15 June 2005 03:42 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login