I think society has two different views, at least in the U.S., of erotica vs. pornography and it seems that erotica is more acceptable and considered "classy," "artistic," or more of a "human expression." Honestly, I prefer erotica (images/videos) to pornographic ones and I somehow make a distinction, but do not know what the criteria is that I use (I just sort of "know" the difference). I can't place my finger on it really. Do you find there is a difference (because when I think about the two objectively, both can be equally explicit and if equally explicit, what would make erotica more "classy")? And finally, do you have a preference?
Pornography is made with the purpose to arouse, whereas erotica is made to express sexuality. ---------- Post added 23rd Mar 2014 at 12:34 AM ---------- Also, erotica doesn't usually rely solely on the erotic, but blends other aesthetic elements to create something with meaning beyond the carnal.
Hmm, that is an interesting way to look at it. I've always seen the difference as quite concrete: Porn is visual media meant to arouse, and erotica is literature meant for the same purpose. They're both for getting your rocks off, but they are different forms.
Of course my post was mainly in regards to visual erotica compared to visual/video pornography. I really hadn't thought of erotic literature, which I suppose brings "mommy-porn" to the forefront of most people's minds. In regards to mainly poetry, erotica in literature seems to also try in some sort of aesthetic form express sexuality, although I would consider most modern romances to be bad attempts at achieving such a union between beauty and sexuality; thus I couldn't really consider "mommy-porn" to be porn since its sole purpose -- to my knowledge -- is not only arousal.
I'm sure that it's just my limited definition at this point, but I haven't come across anything like this that I wouldn't immediately just call pornographic. After all, that descriptor isn't inherently insulting anyway. You can have classy porn; it's just not very common XD.
Erotica is is more of an art form, less explicit, less overt. Pornography turns its subjects in to objects, it dehumanizes. Both can certainly be arousing. When Mapplethorpe's photos were publicly displayed that was a big part of the controversy. There were many works which could be considered erotica, but may of his most shocking S/M pieces were or could be considered pornographic; adding fuel to the fire was that he'd received an NEA grant to produce such work. On a different note, many of Georgia O'Keefe's flowers are extremely erotic though the artist protested she was in no way depicting female genitalia. The chess scene between Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway in The Thomas Crown Affair is one of the most sexualy charge scenes in filmdom, but there's no tease in a close up of a rim job.
I wouldn't say, by objectifying, porn dehumanizes -- for what are characters but objects? -- but both porn and erotica dehumanize because they pursue an ideal. In this way erotica is more dehumanizing, because its purpose is to express ideals through (usually) human characters and sexuality, whereas the focus of porn is less upon the abstract and more upon the people, placing them more into the role of the subject. ---------- Post added 23rd Mar 2014 at 01:21 AM ---------- Think more along the lines of nude paintings and abstract styles, like Gustav Klimt's.
Hi tscott, I think porn can possibly objectify or dehumanize, but what about those that gladly consent or those who do it on an amateur basis?
This has always been my understanding of the difference. I would not call *any* film I've ever seen "erotica" (and I've seen some good erotic films that I would put above "mere pornography"). But I have seen stuff that was meant as erotica, but fell into a category of "pornographic writing" for me. Not all writing is literature, after all.
As a film, I'd say one of Black Swan's overarching themes to be sexuality and oft depicts it, but one can clearly see sexuality is used to express the transition between rigid repression and liberated insanity, allowing it to be defined as erotica.
There's no solid line, but the descriptions given above are pretty good. US Supreme Court judge Potter Stewart famously said "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it" and I think that phrase sort of defines the problem. Part of it is that, as a society, most of us treat sex as something shameful and dirty. We generally talk about intercourse, masturbation, orgasm, and ejaculation in hushed, embarrassed tones, worried that others will judge us, or that we'll offend others. But when you really break it down and think about it, all of the above things are a normal and natural part of the human experience, and there's no reason to be ashamed about it, except for the values that society has placed on it. I think that's a big part of what makes it so difficult to define the difference between artistic erotica and pornography. There's porn that's beautifully and artistically shot but still has penetration and ejaculation, and most people would describe that as porn. And there's "erotica" that's poorly shot, not particularly artful, that is described as "erotica" because it might have softcore nudity but no actual sex or at least no ejaculation or visible penetration. And there are films that are otherwise ordinary films that happen to have explicit sexual scenes that leave nothing to the imagination. It's really in the eye of the beholder, but I think how society views sex is the real factor that complicates a clear answer.
Porn is like cheap greasy hamburguer, that uses condiments to hide the low quality of the meat and the bread Erotica is like food that is both healthy and tasty.
As an amateur photographer, I usually consider erotic, artistic photography to not be as explicit. I would often use B&W Film to photograph nude people, and in the case of a male the penis should not be erect, if it is shown at all.
The images in pornography are objectifying and dehumanizing. Those who paticipate in the sex trade are a different matter. I can't help but think that as part of the sex trade one would become, and you'll forgive the choice of words, hardened to true intimacy. What I really meant was the images of pornography objectify and dehumanize for the viewer, rather than any concern for the models or actors.