Pornography redefined

Long-time readers of this blog will be aware than I’m fascinated by the semiotics of pornography. Not by pornography itself; as I wrote in Why does porn got to hurt so bad? I find most pornography ugly and unappealing. No; I’m interested in the meaning of pornography, the code it’s written in and what it says about its producers and consumers.

Since I wrote my original meditation on this topic, an interesting shift in the received meaning of the word “porn” has been visible. Consider Domai. This is a site which traffics in pictures of naked women. Yet the front page claims “No porn on this site”.

Consider also GoodShit, which also traffics in pictures of naked women (and, it must be said, lots of quirky and interesting links). Occasionally it carries a link that says “Today’s porn”. Unlike the pictures of naked women, which are inline on the blog page itself, you have to click this link. If you do, you’ll generally find an image of intercourse or fellatio.

Both these sites are asserting, by implication, that there is a class of pictures of naked women that is not porn. And mind you, we’re not talking coy lingerie photos or pinup art here, but full-frontal nudity. Not artsy-fartsy nudity with solarization or chiaroscuro, either, but pictures of desirable young women displaying their desirability.

This does not appear to be an isolated phenomenon. Googling for babes “no porn” will turn up other sites like BadGirls Blog that advertise “No porn” but show lots of skin in presentations clearly intended to be masturbation material.

These assertions of “No porn” aren’t attached to explanations or manifestos. The site maintainers appear to simply take it for granted that their readers have a category “porn” that is more specific and narrower than “pictures to whack off by”, which was certainly what the term meant until recently. I find this interesting.

Comparing the “porn” with “non-porn” pictures accessible from these sites, the pattern of differences is clear. The “non-porn” pictures are typically just women, displaying themselves but not engaged in sex acts. The “porn” pictures depict fetish gear, intercourse, fellatio, and masturbation.

The evidence tells us that, at least on the Web, the meaning of “porn” may be narrowing, shifting towards what is otherwise called “hardcore”.

This, I think, is a good sign. It suggests that a substantial fraction of consumers of porn-in-the-broader-sense are fed up with the oceans of sleazy hardcore out here, and that website operators at places like Domai are catering to this by putting some semantic distance between the sleaze and the non-sleaze.

What we don’t yet see is a consensus label for the new style of non-porn porn. Some of these sites use the label “babe pictures”, but the market doesn’t seem to have sorted out whether that category includes full nudity or not (many “babe pictures” sites don’t). Domai and some other sites use the phrases “simple nudes” or “natural nudes”; the latter also has the more specific connotation of full nudity in outdoor settings.

At their best, “simple nudes” and “natural nudes” have a quality of sweetness and innocence, like old-fashioned pinup art but with full nudity and a totally unashamed erotic charge. In fact, I think emotional tone is the actual ground of the new meaning of “porn”. Porn is not innocent; it always has its own deliberate transgressiveness as part of its subject, and it won’t let you forget that.

I guess one of the people the non-porn porn is aimed at is me. I like my women 3D rather than 2D and seldom have much use for porn, but when I do I prefer the “natural nudes” style to anything else. Part of this is that when I look at pictures of women I want to see the woman, not a lot of extraneous clutter and decoration. But more than that, this style seems fundamentally respectful of both the individual models and of women in general in a way conventional porn is not. That’s an improvement. Finally, all considerations of morality or political correctness aside, I think it’s just plain more fun to look at pictures of women who have not been objectified (or lacquered, tweezed, enhanced, and airbrushed into looking like plastic doll-bots).

I’d like to think this shift in the definition of porn means that an increasing number of porn consumers share these values. But whether thay do or not, I think any reason for leaving behind the heavy makeup and the boas and the spike heels and the colossal fake boobs of doom would be a good enough one. There is quite enough ugliness in the world without making naturally sexy women into ugly travesties.

31 thoughts on “Pornography redefined

  1. I have long considered erotica to be merely a subset of the larger set “pornography.” But then my definition of pornogrphy is any media material that is intended to target specific psychological vulnerabilities in a specific audience.
    One example might be certain Hollywood movies of the 1930s. They depicted lavish wealth in an era when America was in deep economic trouble.
    Another example might be what some refer to as “violence fantasies.” These would include films that are just about nothing but violence.
    Obviously erotic materials address a psychological need as well.
    Once when I mentioned my definition of pornography at a LASFS (Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society) group I was asked, “Then what would your definition of kiddy porn be?”
    I had to think about that for a moment, but I came up with a response. “Toy comercials.” Toy commercials certainly target and attack the psychological vulnerability of a specific audience!
    Anyway, that’s my two cents on pornography.

  2. > an interesting shift in the received meaning of the word
    > “porn” has been visible.

    Interesting; I hadn’t noticed this.

    On the subject of a different distinction, I’ve known people
    who seem to have the working definitions

    - “erotica”: good pornography
    - “pornography”: good pornography


    Aaron

  3. D’oh! Correction:

    - “erotica”: good pornography
    - “pornography”: bad pornography

    Sorry.


    Aaron

  4. >I’m interested in the meaning of pornography, the code it’s written in and what it says about its producers and consumers.

    Perhaps a more intriguing question might be “What is the meaning of sexuality?”. Such a question can trigger a lot of interesting analysis.
    For me, while I have all of the usual reactions to pornography at the hormone level in the protocol stack, I’m left non-plussed higher up. If it’s a two dimension image that is not my wife, how am I helped?

  5. You can get away with calling a nude shot, even a full frontal nude shot, an “artistic nude” these days if you can plausibly say it’s about “the beauty of the human form” and not wank material. A fitting defense, considering how the conservatives in power are cracking down on “indecency” in the wake of Boobgate at the Super Bowl. I mean, if everything we wanked to was Pornography, Victoria’s Secret catalogs would certainly qualify. It’s a bit like those token censor bars they still use in Japan to only symbolically cover up the naughty parts of what is clearly a hardcore scene.

    The art site deviantART forbids pornography but allows “artistic nudes”; where they draw the line appears to be at the depiction of erections, wet pussies, or penetration of any sort. Fetish art is popular there and some of the artists and photographers like to explore BDSM themes and scenarios.

  6. Pornography treats the subject as an object to be used.
    Erotica treats the subject as a person with their own desires and modes of achieving them.

    I suspect that the change for this (Domai versus Hustler) is that we’re finally at a point where getting porn is trivially easy. Nobody has to see you buy it. Nobody has to see you go into the porn theater. Nobody has to see the back issues of the magazine in your attic.

    When it was all furtive, it’s akin to “Well, sure, she’s ugly, but, hey, you can see everything…” – mendicants couldn’t be choosicants.

    Now that it’s more accessable, it’s possible to post a site like Domai that caters to what I refer to as “thinking man’s porn”.

    By far and away the most erotic picture I’ve ever seen (and I wish I’d saved it…) showed a girl who was cute brunette wearing glasses, sprawled out on her stomach on a couch, apparently interrupted from reading a textbook. Looking languidly up at the camera, over the tops of her glasses with an expression that clearly says “OK, I’m ready for a study break. C’mere.”

  7. I’ve just spent some time over at the Den of the Biting Beaver, where I got to see a great deal of heavily anti-porn second-wave feminism. You know, Dworkin-style Cirinist “porn is theory, rape is practice” stuff. The one thing I regret is not being able to get some straight answers out of them.

    Consider Beautiful Agony, the only porn site I ever paid for. Is that porn? I don’t think it actually calls itself porn. What about amateur porn communities like Livejournal’s show_your_boobs (which, despite its name, is home to both male and female amateur pornstars) or kaizersoze125? You can hardly get more authentic than someone posting homemade pictures of themselves, not for money, but rather for the props they get from the folks thanking them. It’s all very open-source. (Note the extremely low barrier to entry–sign up for a free Livejournal account and a picture hosting service, and you’re a pornstar.)

    So you might want to consider another possible effect of the internet’s broadening of porn’s productive base. It’s now no longer the province solely of Californian professionals, with their particular fetishes and designs and habits; no, this is a small facet of what David Brin calls the dawning of the age of amateurs. Why shoukln’t regular, average people transform porn as well as everything else?

    I think one of the benefits of responding to the pornstars right then and there, not having them be removed from the process, is an ethos of “if this isn’t your cup of tea, move along”. There’s a very strong taboo against trash-talking the contributors, because of the Blowjob Principle. This, to me, is the second greatest benefit of hot, amateur porn. (The greatest is, of course, that it *is* hot, amateur porn.)

    (Oh, and if anyone here is on Beautiful Agony, be sure to check out the extended version of video number 33 (Overkill #24) and Overkill #9. Amazing stuff.)

  8. Such a complicated explanation for something so simple.

    I think it is as simple as

    Stupid “hardcode porn” = like Limp Bizkit in music = popular, commercial = for people of low IQ = there are many of them, so to provide it is a good way to make much money.

    Nice natural stuff like Domai = like Apocalyptica in music = good, tasteful, “underground”, elitist = for people of high IQ = a good idea to provide if you are more interested in doing something meaningful, instead of just getting rich.

    Why do you need any explanations more complicated than this? There’ll always be underground-elitist and commercial-popular. It’s normal, simple and natural.

  9. I misread the last word of this post as “transvestites”, which is telling.

    Somehow it makes me think of Pamela Anders[eo]n. On Loveline, I’ve heard her referred to as a “female drag queen”, because she goes to great pains to look as girly as possible. And in the commentary track to Mr. Show’s fourth season DVD, I’ve heard Brian Posehn remark that when you watch her sex tape, she and Tommy Lee talk to each other as if they’re both guys.

    Implications are left as an exercise to the teeming millions.

  10. “Why do you need any explanations more complicated than this? There’ll always be underground-elitist and commercial-popular. It’s normal, simple and natural.”

    Then there will always be people like Frank Zappa who embrace the form of both without the underlying principles, think both are full of shit, and have a laugh at the expense of both. There are a lot of talentless musicians in the underground who get some sort of recognition as being “underground” and there are a lot of people out there in the mainstream who are actually really good musicians.

    All this attempt to make distinctions between “good” and “bad” porn sounds like some sort of conservative, elitist nonsense to try to justify something that they don’t want to admit to themselves or as some way of dividing oneself from “the unwashed masses”.

    Likewise, the whole point about the objectification of women vs seeing the real woman, yadda, yadda. Look at it this way. Porn is a product or service like any other. When you go to use any other product or service (for example, going to a retail store at a shopping mall), you probably don’t want to see the “real person” serving you. You do in fact see that person as a means to an end (getting your product or service), a kind of objectification if you will. That doesn’t necessarily mean you want to abuse the person serving you (plenty do though as standard practice). It just means that’s not your focus. Because if we’re going to get into the opposite line of argument then it seems to me that it’s a slippery slope to where the communists or hardcore feminists go, ie. that “anything that’s not incredibly meaningful is ultimately degradation of the individual”. Next thing you know, our whole capitalist way of life is one big objectification and dirty and wrong.

    From the point of view of the person involved in the porn, maybe that person enjoys making the porn. Maybe that person doesn’t care about being objectified or actually likes it. Even if he or she doesn’t, maybe it’s the best option available. Maybe it beats the hell out of any other uneducated/menial/whatever work at minimum wage. Because the way I look at it, if you’re only in it for the money, then you’re a whore whether you’re taking a money shot, a desk jockey, working a cash register or even a doctor.

    For the record, there are times when I like some pretty wacky hardcore stuff I like, but also others where I like pretty tame “erotica”. Now that, I think, is 3D. Man is a complex beast and it’s silly to try to deny that.

  11. Where I grew up, the TV would show “erotic” films or shows late at night and I’d hear about porn videos and magazines (I didn’t have access to those). When I learned English, it took me some time to realize that porn has broader meaning in this language, and that “soft porn” is what we’d call “erotic”, and “hard core” is what we’d call “porn”. Maybe the shift that you perceive, Eric, is caused by the influence of the term sets coming from different languages and settings?

  12. I think that the supposed graduation from ‘soft’ to ‘hard’ porn is simply a reflection of the degree of agression with which the mind is engaged in evoking a sexual response. Whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a matter of sophistication.

    Gazing at some nice boobs is pleasant enough…if the girl is posed in some natural setting that I can accomodate in my imagination, all the better…as for the harder stuff, well, that debate is for a more private conversation…

  13. What we are actually discussing are portraits of people. Portraiture is considered an art. There are good artists and bad artists. Good artists have bad days, and bad artists occasionally have a lucky day. Lighting, camera technical skills, and editing are parts of the art process, and can make or break the portrait.

    Additionally, the subject has a great effect on the final work. The best portraits, porn or otherwise, are a collaborative effort between the photographer and the subject (or model, if you prefer). Some photographers, such as Bunny Yeager and Robert Maplethorpe, have both technical skills and good interpersonal skills and are able to consistently turn out great art. Both Bunny Yeager photographed Bettie Page in some of her most memorable shoots, so did fetish photographer Irving Klaw; it is obvious that Yeager is by far the better photographer, but they both made great art, though it is great for different reasons.

    There are at any time a limited number of professional porn stars who will work for any photographer. At times, a particular model will have a series of photos that are stunning art; I will see the same model later by a different photographer and be suprised by how pedestrian she looks.

    Pornography is art. Much of it is bad art, for the same reasons that the painting your mother in law bought because it goes well with the living room couch is bad. Nobody cares, not the model, the photographer, or the editor.

    Less often, everyone cares, and a miracle is wrought.

    I also note that many models at the beginning of their careers are excited and happy, and are being treated well by their handlers, and this shows. After a few months or years, the same model is unhappy, and being photographed by second raters, and this also shows. Porn models have a pretty short shelf life, although there are a few exceptions. One model who came out about a decade ago looked to be about twelve years old, and during the dot com boom was featured on a banner at every third straight website I visited. I recently saw her in a new add in a tattoo magazine (she now has extensive, second rate tattoos), looking about twenty and still stunning. (When I met my wife she was thirty and looked about fourteen, she is now forty plus and looks to be in her late 20′s. Yeah, I’m a lucky guy. Can’t play cards for shit, though.)

    Today, pornography and fashion photography have met. i recently saw a short video clip on a porn site of Kate Moss bouncing around topless at a fashion shoot, tearing up a paper background sheet. We all remember fondly the early Victoria’s Secrets catalog. Some fashion photographers dabble in porn as a hobby; the case could be made that porn is art, and fashion photography is commercial.

    I have seen great portraiture of post adolescent girls, of middle aged women, and of models deeply immersed in grotesque fetish accoutrement. The fact that most of it is garbage is a combination of Sturgeon’s law (95 percent of everything is trash) and the painting over the couch syndrome.

    Occasionally, a miracle still happens.

  14. To Caleb:

    >All this attempt to make distinctions between “good” and “bad” porn sounds like some sort of >conservative, elitist nonsense to try to justify something that they don’t want to admit to >themselves or as some way of dividing oneself from “the unwashed masses”.

    If it sounds this way, it has it’s intended effect. I am conservative an elitist, only that I am not a “fundie”, so, I don’t want the most boring and moralistic people elevate to the top, but I want the most interesting and and free-thinking people do it. It’s a different kind of conservativism. But I do believe in hierarchy. There is better and there is worse, how could you live, how could you believe in anything if you would think otherwise? Of course I am not talking about absolute truths as they do not exists. But relative truths – something that works here and now – or personal truths – “I believe it because I like to” – how could you live withouth them? Why on Earth would you consider everything as equal, while, in the absolute sense, everything is truly equal, but live in a relative world, a relative mindset, why should we consider things as equal on the relative level?

    There is elite and there is masses. You can’t understand f.e. music until you understand it. And this just stands for porn. Porn for the elite, porn for the masses.

    About objectification: once there has been a very good practice for treating excess male energy: whorehouses. Now they are all but disappered and the effect of this is really bad, young males spend long, long times of courting those girls they don’t really want to fell in love with, but only want to relieve the excess energy. If people could go to whorehouses, they could relieve the excess energy and then concentrate on girls as an object of love, not as an object of relieving energy. Not having whorehouses means we cannot relieve the excess energy and so we cannot really fall in true love, because our one-eyed autopilot is too strong, lacking his natural treatment. For a girlfriend, we want one part lover, one part whore. If we had the old whorehouse culture, we could concentrate on our girls as 100% lover.

  15. Shenpen: In many ways I am conservative and elitist too, but not when it comes to sex (at least in this sense). There’s stuff I certainly wouldn’t do and that I’m not interested in, but a lot of it is harmless enough and I don’t see the point in passing value judgements on a lot of it. I don’t believe everything is equal. I think you’ve read too much into what I wrote. I do certainly believe there are distinctions that can be made in other areas, just not in this one. Just what is porn for the elite and porn for the masses? There’s probably as much variation of taste within groups as there is between groups. I just don’t see how you can start to differentiate porn for the elite and porn for the masses.

    As to your argument about whorehouses, this is bogus. Firstly, you know full well that there are brothels in plenty of countries. I don’t know if there are or aren’t in the U.S., but there certainly are in Europe and other developed nations. I read once, for instance, that there’s a 40km section of road between Cheb (in the Czech Republic) and the German border that has something like one brothel per half kilometre. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The sex trade, and sex tourism, is a huge world-wide industry, one that often involves kidnapping and rape. People travel to the third world specifically for sex tourism, and even within the developed world plenty of it goes on, which is why I also heard that a few years ago the German government put up notices at its border points threatening any of its citizens who engaged in under-age prostitution that they would be prosecuted in Germany. Likewise, plenty of other western nations are trying to stop their own citizens from engaging in such practices in the third world. A whorehouse culture is rampant worldwide.

    However, that aside, your idea that a whorehouse culture would leave men to concentrate on their girls as 100% lover is ludicrous. We only have to look back to 19th century Europe (when whoring was quite common amongst the upper classes — supposedly, that’s how Nietzsche got siphilis) to see this. Firstly, many marriages were a matter of social and economic convenience and love didn’t necessary come into the equation. Secondly, until some way into the twentieth century, male chauvanism was alive and well and women were often treated as objects and their own sexual or romantic needs and desires were all but ignored. Thirdly, nineteenth century Europe was clearly quite sexually messed up. Whether we’re talking about covering the legs of furniture so it wouldn’t be sexually provocative or Freud (or later Wilhelm Reich) and wacky ideas that were spawned with his interactions with a bevy of sexually mixed up Viennese socialites (whose husbands were no doubt out whoring), it’s obvious that the old whoring culture in Europe was anything but Utopian. Also, your ideas seem to suggest that only men have ravenous sexual appetites and that women somehow need to be protected from that. Get real. This is the twenty first century.

  16. It is a matter of class. Most of the people consuming the the “bad” porn are of the lower classes. It is to be expected that it would be crass and of exceedingly low quality.

  17. William Cooper: How do you actually measure that though? You might look at the sort of magazines or videos picked up by people in porn stores or even roadside truck stops. However, I’d say that the middle to upper classes are probably more low key in how they go about getting their porn (due to the Judeo-Christian social taboos sexuality in our society), so it’s hard to measure what they’re up to. With the advent of the internet, anyone can get anything he or she wants pretty much and keep it quite secret.

    All we know is that every so often some British aristocrat or politician gets himself into all sorts of trouble (and I’m sure a lot more throw a whole lot of money at problems they get themselves into so they will go away). It’s also worth noting that the Marquis De Sade was an aristocrat.

  18. I think there’s a structural answer which has to do with government intervention, also.

    Under the various “obscenity” laws, material which arouses prurient interest *and* does not have any “artistic” or scientific merit is considered “obscene”, and is potentially legally sanctionable. Sites like DOMAI have a pretty strong claim to “artistic merit”, so even if there is a crackdown on the more hardcore sites, the “artistic” sites will be unscathed.

  19. Pornography can be beneficial for those who know it is fantasy and are consenting to watch. Pornogrophy can also be ugly if going overboard (this is relative to the individual) as when it hurts someone or degrades someone.

  20. I think anyone’s sexual preference, dealing with pornography or otherwise, is up to them if its done in the privacy of their own home… I’m pretty straight-laced when it comes to porn and sex.. but how can you look down on someone if they are an upstanding member of the community and they look at porn? So what? as long as no one is being injured then i see no reason for shame or disregard… If someone wants to shoot heroin, smoke marijuana, snort cocaine, tune in or drop out on their own time and still maintain a high level of kindness and be a contributer to society, then I say enjoy yourself.. if someone is watching videos of S&M/Bondage/simulated rape or whatever depraved thing they come up with, remember someone Directed that video, people Acted in that video… You don’t have to watch it, its not forced on you… yes, it should be regulated so that children aren’t subjected to it.. but until there is a concrete way of doing that, lets just hope that we are all smart enough to monitor our children and ourselves so we all grow up to be upstanding citizens…

  21. >I like my women 3D rather than 2D.

    Great definition! :-) Consequently ICQ girls are just “console” or “text mode” women. In my early age I’ve met the one of such a kind. After 2 years of our Internet chat / telephone meetings she has defined finally that she is not a young woman as she said at the beginning, but rather 44 years old mother of two almost adult children and that she is married. It’s an ordinary story of the Internet beginnings when a virtual reality without borders has been created, virtuality that will never be even partially merged with the real world, with its long distances, different political and social systems, border rules, entrance visas, financial expenses, etc.

    Since that time I used to say, best woman is the one you can reach within your bed.

  22. We have a big discussion about the definition of pornography in Europa. And they are not talking about ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ porn… is seems the government here want to push all that kind of entertainment in a bad corner only. If you have a porn-site here in Germany without an adult-check, or with some non-protected free stuff you will be banned from google-germany very fast and you get a lot of trouble. But the same stuff is available on English sites a few clicks away… That is really crazy, because the government did not realize the meaning of INTERNET.

  23. why there are so many humans who are not able to accept that we are sexual beings and have turned to something as natural as sex subject taboo? I believe that only there is an answer: sex is too powerful, desire is not easy to handle and the pleasure that it generates is very great. Those qualities cause that it generates fear in the weak ones, and esotos single know to react of a form: trying to destroy what they do not dominate. And these to which I talk about are the censors. When the weak ones must be able of decision on which they can see or not others, all image that fear will be ‘ ‘ dangerous for the society”. And later they are corrupt and the hypocritical ones that takes advantage of the weaknesses of others and raises the flag of ‘ ‘ morality’ ‘ so that the weak ones follow them and thus they are able to be able (and money…). how many artistic expressions would not have been massacreed and how many damn they would have less power and money if the average of the human beings had been less weak? I am not stupid, nobody NEVER in history censured something because it thought that it did or another person to him or because it thought that it protected the boys. How better it was protected of his fears, how worse… one took advantage of the fears of others to benefit himself. ¿porque hay tantos humanos que no son capaces de aceptar que somos seres sexuales y han convertido a algo tan natural como el sexo en tema tabú? Creo que sólo hay una respuesta: el sexo es demasiado poderoso, el deseo no es fácil de manejar y el placer que genera es muy grande. Esas cualidades hacen que engendre miedo en los débiles, y esotos solo saben reaccionar de una forma: tratando de destruir aquello que no dominan. Y estos a los que me refiero son los censores. Cuando los débiles tienen poder de decisión sobre que pueden ver o no otros, toda imagen que teman será ”peligrosa para la sociedad”. Y después están los corruptos e hipócritas que se aprovechan de las debilidades de otros y enarbolan la bandera de la ”moralidad” para que los débiles los sigan y así consiguen poder (y dinero…). ¿cuántas expresiones artísticas no habrían sido masacradas y cuántos malditos tendrían menos poder y dinero si el promedio de los seres humanos hubiera sido menos débil? Yo no soy idiota, nadie JAMÁS en la historia censuró algo porque creyó que le hacía un bien a otra persona o porque pensó que protegía a los chicos. Cómo mejor se protegía de sus miedos, cómo peor…se aprovechaba de los miedos de otros para beneficiarse. A greeting for all from Argentina.

  24. I just finished setting up a porn search engine, at first it was like Yeah a porn search engine, now, I have to tell you it makes me numb to everything. I’ve seen soo much sick shit, and I’m trying to keep the things in my search engine unbiased like google, but some of the results make my gut churn. So I’m stuck trying to filter that crap out, its real bad. Take it from me, enjoy the playboy mags while you can, 2 girls 1 cup is not the sickest thing on the web!!!

  25. What would the main difference between porn and erotica be? If we claim that we’re redefining, or trying, to redefine these two, I’d say that you have porn when the model/s shows her/his asshole in solo/group nudes, or in case of sex scenes, intercourse is seen. Why the first one? because when that body part doesn’t show, that means the model is not spreading or bending in an “indescent” way. We’ve seen Cindy Crawford nude, Pamela Anderson, Sophie Marceau, Julianne Moore Bottomless, Bo Derek, Erika Eleniak, Elizabeth Berkley, etc, etc. but we haven’t seen their pinkies, why? cause they’re aware that they would be doing porn. So, everytime you see Mr. Pink, you have porn, and when you get full frontal nudes, “normal” nude poses, side shots, backside shots, sitting with legs crossed, etc., you get Erotica. I have a blog in which you can find erotica mainly, although some models are naughtier than others, doing porn instead of Erotica. Visit: girlprime.thumblogger.com to see what I mean!

  26. I just love sex, porn, erotica, sexuality, bodily enjoyment. Whatever you like to call it. I think we are all different and all have our levels of enjoyment. Main thing that we don’t judge negatively others because of it. Some walk the beach naked, others only show their eyes… ;-)
    Great blog, keep it up!

  27. what i wunna know is when are men gunna be tied up and choked? When are they gunna vomit making a porno? When are they going to cry or fight back tears because of a porno they participated in? when are men gunna feel pain during a porno filiming while women have the orgasms? you can say porn isnt degrading but i bet no man would put himself in that position. what man would want to be humiliated and hurt while a women cums on his face, then leaves him tied up. men don’t even think they had sex without an orgasm at the end, how about these women who probably have rips and tears from lack of lubrication.
    the two biggest problems with porn is: that there is too much hardcore porn that does just this. these men abuse and rape women and put some other term on it to make it seem ok. it’s not ok. even if the woman consents, how can you enjoy watching it if clrearly shes not.
    the second biggest problem is: sense when do men think they are the only ones with sexual needs. when will men start being displayed all over the interenet naked. why can’t we even the playing fields? it would seem less degrading if sexual exposing yourself was a human things not a womans things. ppl always says naked women posing is ok because its human nature to be sexual but when are men going to try and sexually please women?
    my biggest note to every man is don’t just expect women to be alluring and sexy. it makes sex very one sided. and always make sure a woman is enjoying it. don’t leave her out either-and you know what i mean. too many of you tend to do that because your selfish.
    which is why so many men are ok with porn. selfish desires for an orgasm overcoming the thoughts that the woman may or may not enjoy it.
    thats really not being a man at all…but a boy eager to whack off

  28. Personally I think porn is natural. And that is just what is say about it’s customers. We would not exist if it wasn’t for porn. The difference for me between nude and porn is that nude can be platonic art, just beauty (or uglyness). Erotic is where desire comes along, and porn it where this desire is fullfilled, where there is lust, instinct. Then there is bdsm and stuff, which i do believe has nothing to do with porn, but with power. Those two are often combined because of the common factor: desire.

  29. Hi Eric,

    I have just begun reading your blog after someone send me a link to this page. Well, the Web Filter at my institute does not block both Domai and Goodshit. So I guess this non-porn porn is catching on!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>