Art, Erotica, and Porn

[Sunstone]

Interesting distinctions, Sunstone! I'm also curious about the purpose of making these distinctions. It seems to me that you're setting up an opposition in order to condemn certain things.

Pornography = bad.
Erotica & Art = ok/good.

With these distinctions in place a person could write ethical theory and legal code.

It is not my intention to condemn anything, Rob. You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there.

...I generally define pornography as material designed to arouse sexual feelings in the viewer and containing explicit depictions of sex.

Do you distinguish between pornography and erotica?

So we might go back to an assumption of the question. Why do you think certain forms of sexually oriented material are degrading to the model?

If we abstract one trait or characteristic of a person from the whole person and then say that one trait or characteristic of them is all that matters about them then we have, almost by definition, degraded them.

That is not just true of porn. It's true of racism, sexism, ageism, and any other degradation of people that is based on the logic of abstracting one trait or characteristic from the whole and then asserting that one trait or characteristic is all that matters about them.

I define porn as that which reduces a person to their sexuality and nothing more than their sexuality. In principle, that's no different from reducing someone to their ethnicity and nothing more than their ethnicity. Or reducing someone to their gender and nothing more than their gender. Or reducing someone to their race and nothing more than their race. Any such reduction of a person is degrading a person.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not really sure. What led you to these definitions?

Why do you think a distinction is necessary?

I don't understand the questions, Scott. They seem irrelevant to me.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with this (though I would classify erotica as a subcategory of art).

But not with this:

I don't think a focus solely on sex has to be degrading. I think you can have art that focusses solely on sex without being degrading.

I think that degradation comes in when the subject is treated less than fully human. Sex is part of humanity, so an exclusive focus on sex focusses on something that's human. An exclusive focus on sex is no more inherently degrading, I think, than an exclusive focus on bravery, or wisdom, or cattle-roping, or any other part of the human experience. The degradation isn't from the breadth of the focus.

Otherwise, we'd be saying that there's something inherently base about sex, and that unless a portrayal of sex is mixed with some other mitigating element of the human existence, then it is degrading.

Or do you think that an artwork that focusses solely on cattle-roping would also be degrading?

I don't think you have understood me, Worshiper. But that's not so much your fault as mine. Please read what else I've written in this thread and see if that doesn't help to clarify my position.

 

[ranjana]

i think there's a big gender difference too... a man is generally very visual and doesnt need a story or romance to get turned on, therefore straight-up sex on display (pornography) is the direct route to arousal.

but a woman is generally more drawn to a story line and romance and lots of build up... so she might prefer stories, sexy art films, hints of sexuality in pictures, (erotica) these will get her turned on more than porn.

so maybe they are equal but different. its all just fantasy anyway!

 

[Sunstone]

i think there's a big gender difference too... a man is generally very visual and doesnt need a story or romance to get turned on, therefore straight-up sex on display (pornography) is the direct route to arousal.

but a woman is generally more drawn to a story line and romance and lots of build up... so she might prefer stories, sexy art films, hints of sexuality in pictures, (erotica) these will get her turned on more than porn.

so maybe they are equal but different. its all just fantasy anyway!

Yeah, good points.

 

[ranjana]

when you say degrade, i am interpreting it as taking away dimensionality, like a degraded picture looks more two-dimensional than three-dimensional... so in effect the person is 'less', but not necessarily made vulgar or disgraced.... am i projecting my own meaning onto it?

 

[Sunstone]

when you say degrade, i am interpreting it as taking away dimensionality, like a degraded picture looks more two-dimensional than three-dimensional... so in effect the person is 'less', but not necessarily made vulgar or disgraced.... am i projecting my own meaning onto it?

That works for me Ranjana! But I think it can also mean that a person is made vulgar or disgraced -- I think there are degrees of degradation there.

 

[RobGelber]

It is not my intention to condemn anything, Rob. You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there.

No offense meant. I'm simply trying to look at the implications of the distinction being made.

Do you distinguish between pornography and erotica?

I personally don't think there's a hard distinction. The one Ranjana sets up is pretty good and seems to reflect the ways these words are used.

If we abstract one trait or characteristic of a person from the whole person and then say that one trait or characteristic of them is all that matters about them then we have, almost by definition, degraded them.

That is not just true of porn. It's true of racism, sexism, ageism, and any other degradation of people that is based on the logic of abstracting one trait or characteristic from the whole and then asserting that one trait or characteristic is all that matters about them.

I define porn as that which reduces a person to their sexuality and nothing more than their sexuality. In principle, that's no different from reducing someone to their ethnicity and nothing more than their ethnicity. Or reducing someone to their gender and nothing more than their gender. Or reducing someone to their race and nothing more than their race. Any such reduction of a person is degrading a person.

I see what you mean. But in the -isms you list, a person is often reduced to a single trait in order to pass judgment on the person as a whole, and usually an unfavorable judgment. But it seems to me that the abstraction that occurs in porn is probably more like the abstraction that occurs in sporting events. Athletes are also reduced to a single aspect of their personality. Viewers watch the players in sporting events with only one aspect of those players in mind - their physical prowess. But it's a glorification of that aspect, not a degradation. Nobody thinks sports stars are degraded by the mass media attention given to one aspect of their personalities. Nobody's going to deny them a job for their athletic ability in a way that someone might be denied a job for their race, gender, or age.

Anyway, those are my ideas. I'll be interested in what you think.

 

[Ozzie]

Are you suggesting that an image of a nude 12 year old is intrinsically pornographic?

Porn is in the eye of the beholder, and nothing is instrinsic if nothing is left to the imagination. "Art" should be obvious when this subject is concerned.

And if so, do you consider nudity intrinsically pornographic?

Only if the subject is doing it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

An interesting defnition.
Here where I live the official definition for porn is any direct portrait of the sexual act. So the "mechanical act" is visible.

I would prefer this definition and leave the "degrading" out of the discussion or include it in a seperate term.

 

[Yerda]

I don't understand the questions, Scott. They seem irrelevant to me.

No worries.

 

[Inky]

I'd say that what makes an image pornographic depends not on the literal content of the picture, but the intentions and reactions of the people creating, displaying and viewing it. A picture of a girl sitting in her underwear might be printed in a Macy's catalog in the underwear section, and be not pornographic at all, but the same picture printed in a "dirty" magazine could be. Heck, a picture of a slice of pie could be porn if it's printed in a magazine titled "The Sexy Pie Magazine for Pie Fetishists". My fast rule is that if it's being made, sold or viewed primarily for sexual stimulation, it's porn in that context.

I define porn as that which reduces a person to their sexuality and nothing more than their sexuality. In principle, that's no different from reducing someone to their ethnicity and nothing more than their ethnicity. Or reducing someone to their gender and nothing more than their gender. Or reducing someone to their race and nothing more than their race. Any such reduction of a person is degrading a person.

Could you give an example of an image or situation that could be portrayed in a video that would be porn by this standard? I'm not asking as an argument, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by a picture or video reducing someone to their sexuality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pornographic nudes are, by definition, both about sex and degrading to the model.

By definition? Whose? And by whose testimony has the model been degraded? Yours or the models? And what if the model is virtual? And ... ?