What is porn?

[cleric of the order]

Spoiler: tom lehrer

/thread

but more reasonably op, what makes something pornographic is usually a focus on the sexual aspect to the exclusion of all others.
even the fullest, most dedicated figure drawing, carefully etched out has some artistic meaning. but i thin a lot of it is down to intention and artistic skill. (normally I'd say if someone made something for the sole purpose of masturbatory aid, then it would take some sort of artistic genius to salvage that as artistic rather then smut).
that being said, Doa is not, however porn.
it's stylized, very much so towards sexuality but it does hold another meaning, another want.
It's a god damn fighting game, and not one designed to be of a direct and only sexual nature, though i think that is slowly being eclipsed by it's legacy and by team ninja itself.
Furthermore I wonder if the series is even relevant anymore, i have seen some argue it's exclusion from evo is very telling about the competitive community(or the lack there of).
Even with the relatively unhealthy obsession with gonads team ninja seems to have, they have tried to preform excellence in some form. They have tried to push graphical fidelity in their works, pushed focus on stage designs, among other things. And as far as i know remained a serviceable fighter. and as long as it remains a serviceable fighter, as long as a reasonable percentage of people play it to enjoy the fighting and solely to masturbate then simply it is not smut. large female cast with a focus on breast physics does not make a game pornography.
Fifty shades seems to be another beast, (but i can understand why DoA seems very close to it, relatively inspired was the choice to compare those two) having not read it and there for unable to converse a length about the controversy or the full nature of the novel itself and thus my opinions are suspect. However it was a work created by one such person to be fulfilling of a form of sexual gratification and only that. Worse yet it isn't entirely it's own work if you can understand my train of thought, erk... erotic, poorly written, fan-fiction. emphasis on the poorly written from what i have heard.
Being as such, this is a directly and solely erotic novel. From what i understand people read this enmasse to masturbate. And from what i understand he number people enjoying it for over functions are woefully insignificant. From what I've looked up, the critical responses to the damn thing makes me believe that the only service of note is the edgy sex itself. and if the only service the book itself provides is of a sexual nature then what more is it then sex.
Also i find it really weird that you, op are comparing self admitted erotic model to, what you describe as an overly stylized game.

Also I have to wonder why Russel brand should be taken with anything more then a grain of salt, the man's a minion and this fight the new drug thing is so insipid i cannot do much more then furrow my brow and scream inwardly about being the first moralistic puritan in this room,.
Heck, a lot of what he addresses directly; journal of adolescent health for example seems to be disingenuous, especially because it was followed with "Researchers have had difficulty replicating these results, however, and as a result the aggregate literature has failed to indicate conclusive results."(E. T. Owens 116). (mind you i have not had the time to fully read the piece and all cited works within, though I suspect he just ripped it from the conclusion). Further more within the conclusion as the paper went on to state the full effect it has in the long run is unknown.which falls in line with the quote by Jill manning, which also seems to hold a bit of weight, as she is cited in a number of essays on the topic. But he fails to provide full context or even her conclusion and if i remember it right, on it's more or less we have no idea what this is doing to children, much as the above mentions. Returning to the journal for a moment, the short term effects, if truly full effects are cause for some concern but sounds relatively close to what being a teenager is normally, aside from the lower rates of social integration (which follows that the next list of effects such as delinquency could be slaved to it. The insecurity and questions of sexual traction just seem to be a product of an inflamed libido mixing with the normal existential angst of teenage life. Everything that is supposed to be damaging just sounds like it gets kids focused on sex, and thus they focus on sex a bit more nothing more. On top of that i personally believe it might be in some part a product of post modernism and the destruction of truisms and not the sole responsibility of porn. On the last relevant note The Gary R Brooks production has not been introduced and after some digging from all i know it's likely from the Centerfold Syndrome. Which i have tried to dig up both information on and criticism against, to Ive found a pretty small pissing match between it being largely unsubstantiated and it being perfectly reasonable expect for a few parts of "less supported". All of which i have not been able to read myself, for obvious reasons (I don't have 50 bucks and a couple days to read through that book, a paper and then another paper criticizing the paper). In total, while i have no way of judging the works them selves I will assume they are far better handled then his own, though suspect the Brooks, work to be rather dubious, first claim is a cause for some caution. Barring everything else he draws "from his personal life", which is bollocks. So far as to fail being to be anecdotal evidence as far as I could understand, being rather a dull, vague confirmation, closer to; "yes, yes. this happened to me, yep. mhmhm. This is my life, porn did this". Than anything of even loose substance.
I think the man could have went about that a much better way, actually supporting, elaborating on,expressing reasoning for and around the claims within the quotes he used in his vlog or whatever you want to call it. I find it suspect (and some what annoying)the man couldn't take the time out of his life to say; "within Centerfold Syndrome" or "during (x event) ..... was quoted as saying, ". As such as the case, I can't take the man seriously.
Also I find it worrisome, that porn is left rather vague. Softcore porn could be as simple as the depiction of a person's form, and I fear the end result such a matter. Figure drawing, and photos are consisted in that mix, and people have often tried to blur the lines between artistic depiction and porn wherever it suits them, especially when there is a controversy to be to engineered and while i have no love for this matter, the further criminalization of porn will likely back fire like any pleasure industry does. Also if i am not mistaken, in America, I have little interest in the history of porn so bare with me certain the attempt to criminalize (from what i remember by a first lady, either regan's or another) made it a legit industry some time in the time span of the 50-80s. but I'm not certain of that last assertions, nor even if it could be comparable.

 

[Gorrath]

While mightily resisting the urge to argue about female vs/ male objectification in art or porn, let me say that porn is defined different ways depending on the context. In the United States and I imagine in most other places, we have legal definitions for porn. In the U.S. porn is generally defined as media that is intended for sexual arousal and has no redeeming qualities as art. It's that last part that really makes it tough to nail things down. Who gets to say what media does or does not have any redeeming qualities as art? The courts of course. But in broader cultural perspectives, it depends on who you ask.

50 Shades might be poorly written tripe, but that does not indicate it has no redeeming qualities as art. Same with DoA, it may be done in a visual style that is meant to be sexually appealing to the people who like that sort of thing, but one would be hard pressed to argue that there's nothing else to the game. Neither piece of work actually rises to the level of "porn."

So is there any "bad" porn? Welll, we might have poorly made porn, which one might consider "bad." But that's hardly an ethical issue. We have badly produced porn, wherein the actors/actresses are abused on and maybe off screen, often with a lot of coercion involved or porn that actually contains illegal acts (child porn, ect). This would be the porn I would have a problem with. Some would argue there is "bad" porn that is ethically problematic because it is racist/sexist/objectifying/makes people have unrealistic expectations/makes someone a rapist.

As for the -ism stuff, porn is often rife with it, especially sexism and objectification. While I will, as stated above, avoid cleaving into nonsensical "who has it worse" arguments, porn is inherently objectifying. Setting up an unrealistic set of scenes/circumstances in order to treat the characters as nothing more than sex objects is, more often than not, the whole point! This is not a problem in and of itself. Some might draw bad conclusions or be bad at differentiating between the reality of healthy sex/kinks and what they see in porn videos/stories but that is a problem with that person, not a problem with the material. Even some of the most distressing subjects can be portrayed in porn and I will argue that there isn't anything wrong with it. So long as the production doesn't contain illegal acts and isn't abusive to the actors in a way they don't like, people should be free to produce/consume whatever porn they like, even if it is heavily fetishized or contains downright shocking or offensive material.

 

[lacktheknack]

Porn is a product designed to induce lust as its primary purpose.

That is why people consume it, after all.

And that makes 50 Shades of Gray absolutely porn in my mind.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Definition of porn is "any form of spank material", what ever it is that rustles your jimmies would fall under porn.
And then everyone freaks out because they imagined their shit was all pure and clean... surprise surprise, it stinks like all the others.

It's hard to really talk beyond the basics with people being so cagey and afraid of everything related to sex, for most it will always be immoral and nasty. Russell is a good example of that, even though he is a bright guy and not uncomfortable talking about the subject even to millions of people he immediately chastises himself for everything sex related. And that is a persistent social rule "sex is dirty and you should feel dirty for it", as long as that is at the forefront of every such conversation we can't really get anywhere.

 

[balladbird]

"porn" is a bit of a subjective term sometimes, with puritanical types ready to throw the label at anything that bears a pair of breasts in it, and liberal types who don't regard anything as porn.

I recall one person decided to hold a contest to see who consumed the most pornography out of a group, and his definition of porn seemed the most appropriate to me. "Any media a person consumes, in which their interest diminishes entirely after achieving an orgasm"

 

[Mister K]

I personally think that porn is any subject of media (be it book, a picture or anything else) which sole purpose is to sexually exite you, to make you, without better word, "horny". This is the main difference between erotica and porn: former has a goal to show you beauty of physical side of human nature or human relations, while porn exists to give you , ahem, a boner (or its female analogue).

"Any media a person consumes, in which their interest diminishes entirely after achieving an orgasm"

That too.

 

[Gorrath]

Porn is a product designed to induce lust as its primary purpose.

That is why people consume it, after all.

And that makes 50 Shades of Gray absolutely porn in my mind.

I feel like this is perhaps too simplistic a definition as it relies solely on the intent of the artist as the criteria. Take for instance a nude photo of a conventionally attractive woman. If the photographer says the point of the photo is to incite lust in the viewer, it would be porn, but if the photographer says the point of the photo is to appreciate the artistic value of the nude female form, is it now not porn? Does the content and context of the image play no role in determining its status as art or porn? What if you don't know the artist or they can't be contacted; does it become impossible to determine if a work is art or porn?

I'd argue that even if the primary purpose of a work is to incite lust in the reader/viewer, that alone is not enough to qualify it as porn. If someone is really into balloons and takes a photo of a balloon specifically to incite lust in other people who are into balloons, is that photo pornographic?

Given the above, would you not agree that a more nuanced definition is needed?

 

[Gorrath]

deleted double post, captcha lied to me

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Porn is a healthy part of a balanced breakfast. And a nice assistant in ensuring a good night's sleep.

Particularly, I'll say that I feel it's appropriate to use the term when the only reason you're watching it/reading it/playing it/whatevering it is to get your rocks off. DoA has 'pornographic' elements but typically isn't only there for you to jack/jill off to. 50 Shades is basically shitty written (terrible) BDSM porn. I'm not sure what other purpose it would have besides being vapid "excitement" material.

 

[lacktheknack]

Porn is a product designed to induce lust as its primary purpose.

That is why people consume it, after all.

And that makes 50 Shades of Gray absolutely porn in my mind.

I feel like this is perhaps too simplistic a definition as it relies solely on the intent of the artist as the criteria. Take for instance a nude photo of a conventionally attractive woman. If the photographer says the point of the photo is to incite lust in the viewer, it would be porn, but if the photographer says the point of the photo is to appreciate the artistic value of the nude female form, is it now not porn? Does the content and context of the image play no role in determining its status as art or porn? What if you don't know the artist or they can't be contacted; does it become impossible to determine if a work is art or porn?

If they're actively screwing with the viewer expectations, then yeah, it's difficult to tell the difference. This isn't a common issue, though. Find me a photo of a naked lady in a come-hither pose that's ostensibly "appreciation of the female form".

I'd argue that even if the primary purpose of a work is to incite lust in the reader/viewer, that alone is not enough to qualify it as porn. If someone is really into balloons and takes a photo of a balloon specifically to incite lust in other people who are into balloons, is that photo pornographic?

I say that it is. We'd call that "balloon porn". Much like how "tickle porn" and really any other type of object porn is a thing. There are foot fetish sites that have no sex, just feet in various positions. That's porn, just a type that does nothing for a lot of people.

Given the above, would you not agree that a more nuanced definition is needed?

I've always gone with "If it's not porn, I can view it with my Mom".

 

[rutger5000]

Well I would say anything someone masturbates to. However, I've been on the internet long enough that would make everything porn. So I would limit it to anything created with the intention that someone would masturbates to it.

 

[Zetatrain]

This topic is a good one to bring up because the North American version of pornography is quite a bit more strict than many other countries. While there shouldn't be anything wrong with nudity, Americans seem to think that so much the suggestion of a woman showing part of an aureola should be something shameful. Given how we act over here when some woman gets topless, there might be a grain of truth to it, even though there shouldn't be anything wrong with it.

I'd even go so far as to say that a good part of the nude photography you'll find in Playboy isn't really pornography (although that means that the other part of it is highly suggestive), but the society over here isn't mature enough about nudity to separate the two.

So does softcore porn (things like Playboy) not exist in other countries that are less strict?

American/North American society(s) is one thing, but I don't think its porn industry is really all that different from foreign ones. Despite the popularity of Playboy, I don't really thinks its representative of the majority of America's porn industry since there are plenty of hardcore pornography companies in the US. I'm pretty sure there are other softcore pornography companies like Playboy that exist in foreign countries.

 

[Gorrath]

Porn is a product designed to induce lust as its primary purpose.

That is why people consume it, after all.

And that makes 50 Shades of Gray absolutely porn in my mind.

I feel like this is perhaps too simplistic a definition as it relies solely on the intent of the artist as the criteria. Take for instance a nude photo of a conventionally attractive woman. If the photographer says the point of the photo is to incite lust in the viewer, it would be porn, but if the photographer says the point of the photo is to appreciate the artistic value of the nude female form, is it now not porn? Does the content and context of the image play no role in determining its status as art or porn? What if you don't know the artist or they can't be contacted; does it become impossible to determine if a work is art or porn?

If they're actively screwing with the viewer expectations, then yeah, it's difficult to tell the difference. This isn't a common issue, though. Find me a photo of a naked lady in a come-hither pose that's ostensibly "appreciation of the female form".

I'd argue that even if the primary purpose of a work is to incite lust in the reader/viewer, that alone is not enough to qualify it as porn. If someone is really into balloons and takes a photo of a balloon specifically to incite lust in other people who are into balloons, is that photo pornographic?

I say that it is. We'd call that "balloon porn". Much like how "tickle porn" and really any other type of object porn is a thing. There are foot fetish sites that have no sex, just feet in various positions. That's porn, just a type that does nothing for a lot of people.

Given the above, would you not agree that a more nuanced definition is needed?

I've always gone with "If it's not porn, I can view it with my Mom".

But your final statement here, which is another pretty apt rule of thumb, disagrees with your proposed definition. Would you have a problem looking at a picture of a balloon with your mother? I'd argue that porn should not be defined in such a way as its qualifications lie solely in the domain of the person making the work nor the person viewing it but rather the junction of the two along with broader social/cultural norms.

In my first example, I don't mean someone screwing with viewer expectations. Two people can look at picture of a nude woman and conclude that it is or is not porn based on their own belief about what porn is and isn't. So too can two photographers take a picture of a nude woman, the same nude woman, in the same pose and each legitimately claim that they did or did not intend the resulting photo to be lust-inducing.

This is why I don't consider most "object porn" to be porn at all. The intent of the creator is to make something lust-inducing and the intent of some of the people searching such images is to have their lust induced but in the broader culture, there is nothing pornographic about a picture of a balloon no matter why the picture was taken or who views it to get off. To everyone not involved in the fetish, a balloon is just a balloon. There are in many places serious legal ramifications to the distribution of pornographic materials. I think it's worth keeping the definition pretty strict and focused to prevent censorship.

 

[lacktheknack]

Porn is a product designed to induce lust as its primary purpose.

That is why people consume it, after all.

And that makes 50 Shades of Gray absolutely porn in my mind.

I feel like this is perhaps too simplistic a definition as it relies solely on the intent of the artist as the criteria. Take for instance a nude photo of a conventionally attractive woman. If the photographer says the point of the photo is to incite lust in the viewer, it would be porn, but if the photographer says the point of the photo is to appreciate the artistic value of the nude female form, is it now not porn? Does the content and context of the image play no role in determining its status as art or porn? What if you don't know the artist or they can't be contacted; does it become impossible to determine if a work is art or porn?

If they're actively screwing with the viewer expectations, then yeah, it's difficult to tell the difference. This isn't a common issue, though. Find me a photo of a naked lady in a come-hither pose that's ostensibly "appreciation of the female form".

I'd argue that even if the primary purpose of a work is to incite lust in the reader/viewer, that alone is not enough to qualify it as porn. If someone is really into balloons and takes a photo of a balloon specifically to incite lust in other people who are into balloons, is that photo pornographic?

I say that it is. We'd call that "balloon porn". Much like how "tickle porn" and really any other type of object porn is a thing. There are foot fetish sites that have no sex, just feet in various positions. That's porn, just a type that does nothing for a lot of people.

Given the above, would you not agree that a more nuanced definition is needed?

I've always gone with "If it's not porn, I can view it with my Mom".

But your final statement here, which is another pretty apt rule of thumb, disagrees with your proposed definition. Would you have a problem looking at a picture of a balloon with your mother? I'd argue that porn should not be defined in such a way as it its qualifications lie solely in the domain of the person making the work nor the person viewing it but rather the junction of the two along with broader social/cultural norms.

In my first example, I don't mean someone screwing with viewer expectations. Two people can look at picture of a nude woman and conclude that it is or is not porn based on their own belief about what porn is and isn't. So too can two photographers take a picture of a nude woman, the same nude woman, in the same pose and each legitimately claim that they did or did not intend the resulting photo to be lust-inducing.

This is why I don't consider most "object porn" to be porn at all. The intent of the creator is to make something lust-inducing and the intent of some of the people searching such images is to have their lust induced but in the broader culture, there is nothing pornographic about a picture of a balloon no matter why the picture was taken or who views it to get off. To everyone not involved in the fetish, a balloon is just a balloon. There are in many places serious legal ramifications to the distribution of pornographic materials. I think it's worth keeping the definition pretty strict and focused to prevent censorship.

Touche, sir. Touche.

I'll withdraw, then, because I do not claim to be an expert in this at all.

 

[Breywood]

So does softcore porn (things like Playboy) not exist in other countries that are less strict?

American/North American society(s) is one thing, but I don't think its porn industry is really all that different from foreign ones. Despite the popularity of Playboy, I don't really thinks its representative of the majority of America's porn industry since there are plenty of hardcore pornography companies in the US. I'm pretty sure there are other softcore pornography companies like Playboy that exist in foreign countries.

Okay, you have me there, their industries aren't that different. I can remember years back, however, that a woman was going to protest Canada's toplessness law on the East Coast and it turned out to be just her and and a bunch of guys with cameras. In countries like the UK (it depends where in the UK) and France, women being topless doesn't seem to generate that kind of behavior. Seems a bit sad.

I guess my badly made point is that many people in North America consider even simple nude photography as porn because even non-suggestive nudes sexually stimulate them where other countries would wonder what the fuss is about.

 

[Gorrath]

Touche, sir. Touche.

I'll withdraw, then, because I do not claim to be an expert in this at all.

Nor am I, I just find these sorts of discussion interesting. I enjoyed our conversation here. Cheers mate!

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

To me, Porn is any media designed to create, foster, and aid in sexual release. All of them at once.

To the thought that it's something to get someone aroused or horny, I might remind everyone that there's no such thing as normal. I have a very open desire of women who can take care of themselves physically.

... Fighting wise, pervs.

There's a gif I recently saw of a woman kicking a water bottle off of a free standing heavy bag, and then kicking the bottle out of the air. That was the most exciting thing I saw all year. I'm not being flippant or hyperbolic. The very fact that said woman can do that makes her one of the most desirable women walking on this Earth. She's wearing work out gear, nothing overtly sexual about her. Just her ability is intoxicating to me.

It also has the bonus of being a mash up gif that is linked to Justin Bieber getting hit in a head with the water bottle

Here it is [https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/the-future-of-combining-gifs-is-now-10-gifs-8.gif?w=480&h=360]

Just looking at that picture again creates stirs. They go when Bieber comes up, but I would honestly try to chat up a woman if I ever saw her do that.

In short, it makes me aroused. However, I would not satisfy myself to it. It created desire, unintentionally, but it doesn't aid in the release.

But Rev, you say. That was never its intent. That's true. But say something like the all the strip teases in the Sin City series. Those ARE intended to create desire. But not intended to aid in the release. Sure, someone can easily use it in that capacity, but the scene was only made to entice.

That's why I say anything intended to create, foster, and aid in sexual release should count as Porn. 50 Shades is easily porn. DoA, probably not. Because it's still a video game at heart. It's intended to be an playable experience in efforts to hone your skills and beat others with. The titillation is a selling perk.

Isnip.

you can't talk about this subject WITHOUT getting into Feminist territory...

in the same way you can't talk about digital art without getting into the technical aspects,

this is a topic that covers gender and media and society yadda yadda...I know "feminist" is a scary word but really its just another theory to apply to thease things we see/experience IRL

I was going to make a response if what you were saying is necessarily true. As a black man, I also thought that there was a lot of negative stereotypes that surround black men (He's always a thug, almost never well spoken) and that it's just an accepted part of the medium.

But now thinking about it. You're probably very correct and I should probably have a more critical view of what they are trying to say from my standpoint.

But the reality of it is... It's what people get off to. Yeah, there's going to be a 'story' (another reason why I prefer Amateur, more exciting to see people who actually have passion than just being paid for it), and baser instincts lead to baser thinking.

What I think is most people prefer that we didn't discuss said things because it feels like another restriction. They can't even get off without thinking about other people's feelings. Even as someone who still fights to be seen as a person instead of a threat... I get that. It has to be daunting that every step of the way they have to think about the plight of other people if it only concerns an individual tangentially. Even in our most intimate alone times.

I don't suggest we ever stop pressing issues, but I do suggest we try to understand that even their fantasies are being assaulted by individual crusades.

That'll probably create some enemies.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'd say today's explosion of non-heteronormative sexual leanings makes it harder than ever to find a rock-solid definition for porn.

If you're straight, even the most decent of all female clothing catalogs can turn you on.

If you're of the LGBT group and have a sufficiently hard fetish for someone of the same gender, then seeing an object of your attraction in an anorak or a ski suit could also be arousing.

If you're a furry, chances are you've been attracted to characters or concepts with no sexuality attached. If cartoon humans are your thing, you might actually end up lusting for, I don't know, appearances from Mister Weatherbee in Archie comics, of all things!

If you're pansexual, everything prospectively turns you on.

If you're asexual, well... Nothing turns you on. Although I'll admit that last one is a concept I have a hard time believing in. I'm convinced most of the so-called Asexuals on the blogosphere just haven't found their kinks yet. I can understand not being interested in romances or serious involvement - but having no basic urges whatsoever? That seems hard for me to believe.

The long and short of it is porn might just well be whatever succeeds in turning you on.

 

[likalaruku]

Porn is when two or more people stick things into bodily orifices that are required by law to be covered in public. If there is no penetration, then it's not porn, meaning that hentai is more porn than a fully clothed woman whipping a man in leather & handcuffs....Unless she's planning to use that strap-on on him.