Defining erotica

[dr_mabeuse]

All the dictionaries I've consulted list them as synonyms, but I make a distinction.

For me, pornography is literature whose primary purpose is to sexually titillate and arouse.

Erotica is sexual literature. It examines the experience of human sexuality.

Since porn is meant to titillate, it commonly is very descriptive of sexual acts. If you can describe people fucking or having sex, you can write porn. And since most people can do just that, most people can write some form of porn, which is why porn is looked down upon. It's easy to do.

It takes a bit of analytical and writerly ability to write erotica. You have to be able to do more than describe things. You have to say what they mean.

As I say, these are my definitions, but I've found them useful.

 

[Softouch911]

Erotica is sexual literature. It examines the experience of human sexuality.

.

.... and/or the sexuality of human experience, for me.

ST

 

[Veelo]

Well, I write porn. You should probably ban me for it.

bump.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

.... and/or the sexuality of human experience, for me.

ST

I like that too

 

[Black Tulip]

All the dictionaries I've consulted list them as synonyms, but I make a distinction.

For me, pornography is literature whose primary purpose is to sexually titillate and arouse.

Erotica is sexual literature. It examines the experience of human sexuality.

Since porn is meant to titillate, it commonly is very descriptive of sexual acts. If you can describe people fucking or having sex, you can write porn. And since most people can do just that, most people can write some form of porn, which is why porn is looked down upon. It's easy to do.

It takes a bit of analytical and writerly ability to write erotica. You have to be able to do more than describe things. You have to say what they mean.

As I say, these are my definitions, but I've found them useful.

No comment from me about American authors writing literature or not. My field of expertise is in another language when it comes to what is or what is not literature. And surprisingly (or not) it comes close to what Mab says. LITERATURE is supposed to make you view the world or part of it in a new light, makes you think about motives, your own morals etc.

You can apply that to porn versus erotica as well.

When I tell people I write stories I call it porn, but I secretly hope others will qualify it as erotica. I aim to write a story about people and their motives. The why is my motivation for writing. Sexual behavior is merely the subject, narrowed down.



Subjective??? Hell, yes! Lots of writers of world fame (the old ones) got that fame long after they stopped writing. LOL I seem to remember that Shakespeare was thought of as writing soap opera, and Baudelaire was plain crazy and a junk.

 

[Softouch911]

LOL I seem to remember that Shakespeare was thought of as writing soap opera, and Baudelaire was plain crazy and a junk.

Some 40-50 years ago, a personality inventory/profile was given to Henry Miller and a group of psychotic killers then-abiding at Alcatraz. Seems the profile of madness and genius is so similar even trained analysts couldn't tell the difference.

Of course, someone could debate whether Miller was a genius ... but still !

ST

 

[Black Tulip]

LOL

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Pornography (from answers.com): Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

I find many different types of art delightfully pornographic. What's wrong with calling something porn anyways? Does it make people feel less sophisticated?

Actually, Chuck, I agree with that definition. If a story revolves around sex with the express purpose to titilate the reader who hopes to get a good wank out of the read, it's porn.

If the piece is a story which contains sex as a vehicle to move the plot along, is done in a realistic way and has characters that seem and act real, the piece is Erotica.

It's all determind by the intention of the writer.

 

[DarkBee]

This can only happen in America...

It's a thin line between something considered natural and something considered illegal. Read and shiver:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/full

 

[Black Tulip]

Fuck, now I can't sleep because I'm too angry.
How stupid can you get.


Like others have stated in this thread, porn is made with the explicit goal of sexual arousal, nothing else.

Thank god for digital camera's. No need to expose (lol) yourself to nosy clerks anymore.

 

[Maximillian_Excaliber]

Pornography or Erotic not the real question.

Perhaps the question should be: Is a work obscene or erotic as pornographic is a layman's term and the legal criteria is whether a work is defined as obscene. That criteria is badly spelled out by the US Supreme Court as follows:

"The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489;
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Can we all agree that the question of whether a work is obscene is strictly relative? Perhaps the only difference between obscene or erotic is that an erotic work is really nothing more than a obscene work that possess the requisite literary element and offends less people. Not that it does not offend anyone, simply that it offends fewer!

We all know if you take a group of 100 people and ask them to read the same story that you will get 100 different opinions on whether they found anything in the story offensive. This is because of the cultural, religious and moral differences in thought between them. To make matters worse, in this ever growing politically correct society we have, some people try to interchange obscene with offensive. So much for the right to have a differing opinion, huh?

As for what the law considers to be obscene, remember this: legal standards are almost always influenced by a very small and vocal segment of any given society and almost never actually reflects real views or practices of its citizenry.

Here are some examples:

Some people think it is obscene/offensive to show the bodies of war dead on television and many would probably say the same of publicly televised executions; while others would say that the same would have an educational value to inform the viewer of the horrors of such and would benefit society as a deterrent.

A preacher may rant from the pulpit about the evils of oral sex while at night his wife is bobbing is knob.

A school teacher may be prim and proper to everyone in public, but she is also the hottest fuck at the singles club.

There are those who would say that too much or too graphic representation of the acts of war are obscene and others the same does not offend.

Now, as for the literary element required for something not to be obscene, consider that one way Webster's Dictionary defines literature is:

"writings in prose or verse; especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest",

So very few works are likely to stand up to the standard offered by Webster's Dictionary of literature in 100 years as ideas of excellence and interest change with each generation as will the concepts of obscenity. Could one not argue that many most of the works of writers to day do not meet that criteria and stand the test of time. That being the case, could they not be defined as obscene either today or in the future simply because they can not stand the test of time and their educational and scientific values will be questionable to future generations?

Do any of you remember the days when you didn't hear the words bitch, screw or slut on broadcast TV and now look at it. Societies views change with each generation. What offends us today, might be less or not at all offensive tomorrow. Hell, I remember seeing "The Live Aquatic With Steve Zusso" and thinking that it did not have any scientific, artistic, literary or politically redeeming value. I know I felt offended afterwards when I saw what I paid $1.50 to see. Does that make it obscene?

Most everyone agree that depicting sex with children and the dead is, not only unlawful, but obscene. There are differing opinions about animals, bisexual sex and homosexual sex.

On a lighter note, personally, if your thing is doing it with goats and Baa-Bet is in the mood, have fun. Just don't be surprised when I chase your girlfriend off when she starts eating my lawn. Furthermore, what two consenting adults, both having the capacity to understand what they are doing, do in their own bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, barn, trash dumpster or whatever is their business. Just don't come crying to me after the doctor has removed the beer bottle from your ass!

OK. I'm done, you can flame me now

 

[Softouch911]

No flames, ME. Just the observation that I'm not sure the legal definitions were so much in question as the variation and function for those of us who think of ourselves as writers.

As you say, the cultural description of erotica/porn is a moving target, so it's not an objective thing at all but relative if you're wishing to recognize it. But as a functional distinction for the writer, it's important to make as readers and publishers distinguish constantly.

Our sense of it was, I think, that it wasn't so much a matter of subject matter (kiddie porn vs. Lolita, etc.) as the approach and intent.

So far as the business logistics of erotica pornography are concerned, it's clear that no greater publicity comes to writing than to have a preacher or two condemn it. I know I always hope I can find someone to offend so much that they'll tell all of their friends.

ST

 

[Black Tulip]

I don't think you can base the distinction on legal descriptions.
ME's post send me searching for a legal basis in the Dutch system. LOL

We'd be entering a veritable morass, since definitions on what is obscene or not are based on a society's view in general. And surprise, surprise, obscene is a whole lot different in Dutch law than in US law.

Erotic on the other hand is clearly stated as having the intent of arousing, whereas pornography is the blatant showing of sexual activities.

I my opinion an erotic story can begin any way the writer wants to. The only thing necessary is the building of tension that could end in sex. The reader has to make the connection inside his/her head. Which makes it all the more tricky to write erotica instead of porn.

Not added anything new, I'm afraid.

 

[DarkBee]

Who cares if it's obscene or not? As long as it's hot (and legal).

 

[Black Tulip]

Who cares if it's obscene or not? As long as it's hot (and legal).

Hi Bee,

Fooling around, huh? ME brought up the point.

Is 't café nog wel open?

 

[DarkBee]

Hi Bee,

Fooling around, huh? ME brought up the point.

Is 't café nog wel open?

Fooling around? Me?

Volgens mij is het café dag en nacht geopend, alleen komt er bijna nooit meer iemand iets drinken...

 

[Softouch911]

What an interesting contrast of cultures: the US version vs the Dutch! Wonderful. Thanks so much for that, BT.

Hesitantly, I'm pulling out a soap box. I try very hard to leave it put away, but this discussion has caused one of my favorite (nonsexual) hangups to fester for awhile, and I think I'll add it to the discussion ... then I'll put the soapbox away again, and I'll try my hardest to leave it there!

Sex is one of the three most important parts of life. (Yes, in my opinion.) The other two are birth and death. Sex is the bridge life makes between them in many ways.

Writers use them all the time. Traditional literature, even if you're so unfortuante that you've only dealt with books approved for use in the schools, deal constantly with death and birth --

Death (which strikes me as the greatest obscentiy of all and pornographic in any of its dimensions) is the focus of great literature -- because death puts life in perspective and lets authors deal with "what's the purpose" of life.

Birth is a beginning and allows writers to consider hope or fear or outrage or pathos. But birth also serves as a place to look at its environment and future ... and to consider its meaning.

Our polite society decided birth is way too close to (dirty, evil) sex for comfort and so Romance (the most popular selling writing) -- the notion that love brings people together and gives meaning to life, or doesn't, or .... however the plot goes, Romantic literature (that leads to conception, often offstage) forces us to consider the nature and purpose of existence, and to love and hope or despair.

As a fan of traditional literature, it has always struck me as weird, if understandable, that sex and sexuality are often "left out" of mainstream literature. Where better can you get an understanding of a person? Where does a person reveal themselves without a mask more than through their sexual relationships? In the moment of birth, yes. In the moment of death, yes. And it happens as well in that third moment when all the masks come down: sex.

The fact that Western society frowns on sex as immoral only sweetens the pot for the writer. How someone deals with sex -- be it fear or joy, greed or anger or passivity, in secret or in public -- tells us more of their character and personality .... and gives a third, powerful moment (with death and birth) where the nature, meaning, and purpose of human life flourishes.

To leave sex out of literatuire is unrealistic, artificial, and sterile.

To talk about erotica and pornography as it there is a useful choice to ignore it, to act as if sex, in fact or in literature, is optional misses the point of literature ... How can I write seriously without writing sex? To think of it as only "the good part" or "the dirty part" makes it sound like an option and ignores the reality that a well-drawn character should be "real."

Some people truly, in fact, ARE obscene. And life really is erotic. What of the bank clerk who dresses only in gray wool? In the thread on plotting, a poster has just pointed out that sexual tension may be needed in the opening lines of a story. I might add -- ESPECIALLY if sexual tension is NOT to be satisfied in the course of the character's life. Why is a character who denies, or is denied, sexual expression alive? Where do they find meaning? What does it mean? Now that's the stuff of literature.

**Putting soapbox away** If you read all of that, thanks.

ST

 

[Maximillian_Excaliber]

Legal or not?

I think the most important point that I was trying to make may have been missed. That is the obvious fact that the question of what is obscene / offensive is relative, changes with time, place and culture. Any real attempt to define obscene, offensive or pornographic is almost useless as opinions vary so much. With the exception of pedophiles and necrophiliacs, it could be said that it is commonly accepted the depictions of these acts involving children and the dead are obscene as they offend most everybody. And, unless you are a member of P.E.T.A, while it may disgust most people, sex with animals is probably far more acceptable, being a victim-less crime.

I have to ask, how is it that if I write a 21 page story, and 19 pages are plot, character development and description, and only the last three pages graphically describe a sex act is it considered obscene, pornographic, or offensive? However, if I took the exact same story and used a paragraph to describe the sex act in far less detail, it is erotic? What really changed other than the fact that I allowed the reader a clearer more detailed visualization of what took place.

Ideas of erotic or obscene seem more about nurture than about nature. Concepts arise more from what we are taught than how we actually feel. What did mom and day say? What does the church say? Sex is only for procreation and is dirty?

I honestly don't believe that the concepts of obscene and pornographic are anything less than legal descriptions. Even amongst a group of 12 writers, all reading the same story, will there be disagreement as to whether a given work was erotic or obscene simply because some them found elements offensive.

It is not what we write as writers that make a work erotic or pornographic/obscene/offensive, it is how the reader perceives what we write.

I believe as writers we can not ignore the legal definition of obscene and have a responsibility to ever challenger it for the simple fact that it by no means reflects the contemporary views of society but rather, once again, the narrow minded views of a small very vocal minority.

And so, we come back to the simple fact that erotic or pornographic is what legal environment perceives it. Only the legal environment will attempt to come up with a clear definition of what is erotic or obscene simply because the rest of us will never totally agree.

This is Websters Dictionary definition of Pornographic:

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction

Even it defines pornographic based on intent. How the hell do you prove the intent of the writer if he or she never told anyone what he or she intended when it was written.

As writers, how can even we judge the intent of another writer.

I remember seeing "Back To School" with Rodney Dangerfield. In it, he is assigned to write a report about the works of Kurt Vonnegut. He pays Kurt Vonnegut to write the report and hands it in. His college professor reads the report and then told him he obviously knew nothing about Kurt Vonnegut. See my point?

By the way, here is some food for thought. I started writing stories on this site so that I could develop my writing technique. I intend to start writing Science Fiction. With each story, I have added steps to the creative process of writing beginning with an outline and moving to complex character development and motivations. I figured it I can write in this medium, I can write anything I set my mind to. That is my intent, it is not expressed in my writings.

 

[Black Tulip]

Interesting soapbox, ST.

I agree that sex is one of life's big motivators. Therefore it follows, to me anyway, that most interesting stories/novellas/whatever have at least the scent of sexual possibilities or sexually motivated actions.

 

[herecomestherain]

I think we almost berate the intention to arouse and titilate as being a somehow less noble intention. In the film world it's fine for a filmmaker to intend to scare you, make you cry, horrify you but if their intent is to arouse you, their credibility is called into question.

As far as erotica or porn goes, is there a continuum, a line on which we can make a mark where one tips over into the other? Does the question really matter? Can someone write an innocuous story with no intent to titilate but by virtue of some personal peccadillo, I find it press all my buttons and whammo it's suddenly porn?

What do we know when we have made the decision that something is erotica or porn? Don't get me wrong, I live everyday with the effects of folks making that decision on my behalf in terms of what films get to be seen in this country and which do not. "Porn or art?" is the question other I love...

The way we deal with this "intended to arouse" idea has had far reaching effect

If it's not intended to arouse then it's not pornographic and if it's not pornographic it's not obscene...

 

[Softouch911]

Not being especially noble, I can't address that issue, but I think the thread has been clear on the difference between porn and erotica, at least so far as this thread is concerned.

Porn's ONLY purpose is to arouse and titillate.

Erotica has the purpose of arousing and titillating with the intent of understanding or dealing with more of the "whole" person of experience of life.

Does that make it "better"?

I think so, but certainly that's personal and not important. For me, sex is part of life, and in my real life the erotic reaches into all sorts of nooks and crannies that aren't often thought of as sexual or erotic.

To treat the erotic as limited to a sex act, or to see sex as somehow separate from normal life, isn't something I think is wrong, but it has -- for me -- the same relation to life as a cartoon does to a photograph or painting that captures the person. A cartoon will always be a cartoon. The photograph or painting has the theoretical potential to become the Mona Lisa or David.

But I'm sure you dont' care if I think it's better, though. It's only "better " because of my personal values and I don't think there is an implication that there is anything at all wrong with pornography. It serves a purpose which is limited to titillation. Like you, I'm fine with that. I even enjoy it upon occasion. My favorite is "Behind the Green Door," an oldie. I also like to watch reruns of "Pinky and the Brain," and laugh at them over and over.

ST

 

[Maximillian_Excaliber]

Porn or Erotic

The debate has been basically has been at what point is an erotic work pornographic? Could one not argue that perhaps as writers we should consider the question of at what point is a work offensive? After all, a offensive work need not contain erotic material to be found objectionable by the consumer.

In a given work, a vividly depicted violent act may be found more objectionable by some than a vividly depicted sexual act and judged by the consumer to be obscene, the standard to which ultimately the legal environment adheres.

Is even the question "what is obscene" an area that we should be debating? Should we as writer placate the brainwashed masses with their narrow minded view of objectionable or obscene by indulging their fantasies?

I submit that we should first, agree to recognize that the standard for what is obscene or "pornographic" or offensive to have already been established by the legal profession and second, that we strive continuously to challenge that standard until it has been redefined into something far more reasonable.

I will assume the role of Devils Advocate here and state that a simple definition of what is obscene could be...

1. Any reenactment or depiction, or description of an act that is illegal.

That description does effectively cover rape, bestiality, acts of a sexual nature involving children and necrophilia, the four heavy hitters on the taboo subject list.

Could there possibly be a flaw in that logic? It would make the nightly news much shorter wouldn't? As for movies, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where every movie had a sweet happy ending and was devoid of violence, intimidation or force? Who needs those offensive documentaries that challenge the ones perceptions of the law, government and the use of power anyway? What possible benefit could they serve to society?

I will not argue that it should be a crime to record in any audio or video record format actual sexual activities involving children or murder. These are not victim-less crimes. In these cases society rightfully needs to regulate the ACTIONS of its citizens; however when we begin to attempt to regulate the thoughts of an individual in an attempt to preempt crimes, we have stepped into the realm of the impossible and instead of protecting and defending the innocent, we create a new class of victims whose only crime was that we perceived that they did not think as the rest of us do and not that they acted to harm us! Ponder this if you will, where there is no victim, how can there be a crime?

Make no mistake, there are some things I find personally offensive and have no desire to talk, hear or see those things depicted fictionally, but does that give me the right to tell everyone else that they must adhere to my personal code of the obscene?

After all, isn't this really an issue of mind control? Isn't the purpose of obscenity laws in the first place to regulate how one should think, what one should think about, what act one should consider, what acts one should engage in? If that is the case, then we most certainly should not be consider, ponder or entertain any act that is illegal.

When we as writers begin to indulge the notion that it is acceptable for any society to regulate not only the actions but the thoughts of its citizenry, we have taken the first steps to embracing the totalitarian state of George Orwell's 1984 with its idea of "Thought Crime".

One final comment, a person is content to sit at home and indulge in fantasies of killing his boss, sleeping with her neighbor's son or having oral sex with his teacher should be left in peace to fantasize in their mind whatever bizarre acts their imagination they can come up with for has society been done no harm. It is when they begin to act upon those things that society should step in for can I not write a book describing in meticulous detail how to rob a bank while never intending to actually do so?

Consider this, while "Bubba" is content to sit and home and beat off to stories about the farmer's daughter (or goat), "Bubba" is too busy to rape the farmer's daughter (or goat) and "Bubba" should be left alone with his dirty little stories and bottle of hand lotion, crisco, vasceline, KY or axle grease as long as that's all he does. After all, society can not have a norm without the abnormal now can it?

 

[walkerlong]

For me, the difference is simple.

Porn is almost all "whats". What happens. Insert Tab A into Slot B and lots of it in all possible variations. Of course the is the obligatory part where Slots B and C explore their options as well.

Erotica should also have plenty of the "whys". Why does slot B want to have A's tab inserted and how do A and B feel about what is going on? For me, good erotica has plenty of whats, hows, whys, etc.

Both have their place. IMO.

I like to think that I write erotica but I'll leave that judgment to others.

This is a pretty good definition, I think.

 

[wickedchicken84]

Apples vs. Oranges

To certain points, I agree with most of those who say that erotica and pornograpy are different. I find that Literotica appeals to both classes of readers and writers, if it did not, its popularity would be limited by the fact that it catered to one group and not the other.

As for a hard concrete flaw-proof definition of the difference, I cannot give one, suffice to say that erotica has the elements that make up a story, plot, climax, resolution and any I missed, etc. Erotica has a story structure, twists, realizations, asides and form. While pornography, though sometimes tasteful, I view as mainly centering around the act of sex as the main theme and not character or story developement.
As for a grey line, yes I think there can be one, some softcore pornography can be viewed as erotica, not by me of course, but by some.

Its like the antiquated comparison between apples to oranges, they both fall into the fruit category and both are sweet, both have spherical shapeness, both grow from trees. So one can ascertain that they both share elements of the other(as porn and erotica do). Yet, while there are major differences (shape, color, taste etc.), there are also the subtle ones as well that more often than not are judged by perspective (which is better, sweeter, rougher on the palate, etc.).

So what becomes the deciding influence? I agree that though some would leave it to degreed professors and accoladed writ, it makes most sense that it is perspective and taste that becomes the judge.

 

[Maximillian_Excaliber]

A Question

If one makes the distinction that a given work is pornographic, is that not to say that the work has no value?

It seems to me that to define a work as pornographic is to say that the only purpose that work has is to cause the consumer to be sexually aroused.

It seems to be that the only difference between erotic and pornographic is that pornographic leaves far less to the imagination in as much as it is far more descriptive of the same act or acts. In essence, both are designed to stimulate the consumer sexually. It is simply that pornographic is far more efficient at it.

Are they really any different? Both may contain plot, character development, and a story line. It seems the only real difference is that pornographic is for lack of a better word more graphic in its description of the same acts.

I have no doubt that every submission I have written for this site has plot, character development and story line. Were I simply to be far more brief and less descriptive, one could say they were erotic if one chose.

Let's face it, if plot, character development and story line are the requisites for material not to be considered pornographic, then every submission on this site that is NOT one long sex scene IS erotic.

On a slightly related note, I wonder how much smaller would the population of the world be without pornography? If a work described as pornography simply because its purpose it to arouse the consumer assists in population growth or level maintenance, can it not be argued that it has at least socially redeeming value and possibly educational value and as such does not qualify for most definitions of pornography?