next »

[beacon1]

The erotica/pornography debate

The distinction between erotica and pornography (as well as the lesser known genre of sexual entertainment, ribaldry) is difficult to identify, if not completely impossible. Proponents for erotic art argue that such work is intended to arouse aesthetic rather than erotic feelings, and is therefore not pornographic. Opponents see this as a pretentious stand, as they believe that erotic art shares the same purposes as pornography. Stephen Gilbert once remarked "The difference between erotica and pornography is simple. Erotica is what I like. Pornography is what you like, you pervert!"[citation needed] One common joke is that "the only difference between art and pornography is a government grant." Another is: "Erotica is when you use a feather. Pornography is when you use the whole chicken."

Wikipedia

[bio_prof_]

We've been subtly reminded by the head of AA/EEO that it's not illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation/gender expression.

I just looked up the statistics on Lambda Legal Defenses website, and only 17 states and DC protect against sexual orientation/gender expression discrimination in the workplace. 


http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/states/

Huh? What? It is not illegal (that is, it's legal to discriminate on this basis?

Can you explain?

In that sexual orientation/gender expression are not protected categories, like race, creed, color, national origin, disability.

So, in essence, I cannot sue my employer for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation because it is not a protected class in my state.  (And over 30 others.)

Well, you learn something new every day. It's not a good thing today.

I join in with the others, onion, with good wishes, and that you'll find a better place!

[much_metta]

Erotica -Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.

Pornography - the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

Hmm... seems like Merriam Webster finds the words to be very similar. I wonder what your objection is to using them interchangeably? Do you have you own notions about how they differ?

And we all know that Merriam Webster and Wiki are THE authoritative sources on scholarly research, field trends, discipline specific jargon, etc.  If anything, they just further reflect the need for further education and outreach by the related disciplines as the "common" understanding is often erroneous.

There are many differences between the two terms, not least of which is that erotica is often viewed and presented in an empowering and celebratory way (especially regarding women) whereas pornography is often viewed and presented in a degrading, demeaning, derogatory, and misogynistic way centered around male consumption.  That line is rarely as hazy as some (like the source in Wiki) would have you believe.  There are many more distinctions, but I don't want to hijack the thread.  The point is that "common" understanding, even "common" terminology is often inconsistent with the research conducted by professionals and disciplinary experts and that is precisely why more educational and awareness programs are needed. 

[anthroid]

Erotica -Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.

Pornography - the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

Hmm... seems like Merriam Webster finds the words to be very similar. I wonder what your objection is to using them interchangeably? Do you have you own notions about how they differ?

And we all know that Merriam Webster and Wiki are THE authoritative sources on scholarly research, field trends, discipline specific jargon, etc.  If anything, they just further reflect the need for further education and outreach by the related disciplines as the "common" understanding is often erroneous.

There are many differences between the two terms, not least of which is that erotica is often viewed and presented in an empowering and celebratory way (especially regarding women) whereas pornography is often viewed and presented in a degrading, demeaning, derogatory, and misogynistic way centered around male consumption.  That line is rarely as hazy as some (like the source in Wiki) would have you believe.  There are many more distinctions, but I don't want to hijack the thread.  The point is that "common" understanding, even "common" terminology is often inconsistent with the research conducted by professionals and disciplinary experts and that is precisely why more educational and awareness programs are needed. 

Indeed.  For instance, equating homosexuality and heterosexuality, or even s&m, with polygamy, shows a pretty weak understanding of all of these concepts.  Polygamy is a marriage structure with specific economic, religious, and social (among others) consequences.  Sex is a small part of the structure of polygamy and really is not the same thing at all as the sexual orientations and practices mentioned.  It is also almost always heterosexual.

There also is a big difference between media meant to elicit sexual desire and media meant to elicit sexual excitement.  On a board for academics, an everyday dictionary and Wikipedia are quite faulty sources on which to rely.

[beacon1]

Erotica -Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.

Pornography - the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

Hmm... seems like Merriam Webster finds the words to be very similar. I wonder what your objection is to using them interchangeably? Do you have you own notions about how they differ?

And we all know that Merriam Webster and Wiki are THE authoritative sources on scholarly research, field trends, discipline specific jargon, etc.  If anything, they just further reflect the need for further education and outreach by the related disciplines as the "common" understanding is often erroneous.

There are many differences between the two terms, not least of which is that erotica is often viewed and presented in an empowering and celebratory way (especially regarding women) whereas pornography is often viewed and presented in a degrading, demeaning, derogatory, and misogynistic way centered around male consumption.  That line is rarely as hazy as some (like the source in Wiki) would have you believe.  There are many more distinctions, but I don't want to hijack the thread.  The point is that "common" understanding, even "common" terminology is often inconsistent with the research conducted by professionals and disciplinary experts and that is precisely why more educational and awareness programs are needed. 

The problem with your analysis is that it is largely subjective. Is BSDM degrading? For some it may seem degrading... for others not so much. So as much as you would want to draw specific lines for what counts as erotica and what is pornography - there will never be distinct lines because they are subjective. I agree the terms in theory mean something different, but some conservatives may call all erotica pornographic. These things are seen through a moral filter... one in which you are very presumptive about knowing the answer I might add...

I used the term porn in parentheses not to replace erotica but to highlight that the videos were on the heavy side.

Erotica -Literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire.

Pornography - the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

Hmm... seems like Merriam Webster finds the words to be very similar. I wonder what your objection is to using them interchangeably? Do you have you own notions about how they differ?

And we all know that Merriam Webster and Wiki are THE authoritative sources on scholarly research, field trends, discipline specific jargon, etc.  If anything, they just further reflect the need for further education and outreach by the related disciplines as the "common" understanding is often erroneous.

There are many differences between the two terms, not least of which is that erotica is often viewed and presented in an empowering and celebratory way (especially regarding women) whereas pornography is often viewed and presented in a degrading, demeaning, derogatory, and misogynistic way centered around male consumption.  That line is rarely as hazy as some (like the source in Wiki) would have you believe.  There are many more distinctions, but I don't want to hijack the thread.  The point is that "common" understanding, even "common" terminology is often inconsistent with the research conducted by professionals and disciplinary experts and that is precisely why more educational and awareness programs are needed. 

Indeed.  For instance, equating homosexuality and heterosexuality, or even s&m, with polygamy, shows a pretty weak understanding of all of these concepts.  Polygamy is a marriage structure with specific economic, religious, and social (among others) consequences.  Sex is a small part of the structure of polygamy and really is not the same thing at all as the sexual orientations and practices mentioned.  It is also almost always heterosexual.

There also is a big difference between media meant to elicit sexual desire and media meant to elicit sexual excitement.  On a board for academics, an everyday dictionary and Wikipedia are quite faulty sources on which to rely.

I don't believe I ever equated anything. You did the equating... I think I simply acknowledged that I would not take an open moral stand on any of those issues by placing stickers.

[anthroid]

I found it absurd, just as I would find it absurd to have a heterosexual, s&m, or polygamist tract, but the Department took the idea into serious consideration.

Here, beacon1, you listed a number of "tracts" that you find absurd.  It is only logical to conclude, as I did, that you believe these all have significant similarities.  My point stands.  You are equating all of these, but you are mistaken in doing so.  Polygamy is quite different in many, many ways than the sexualities or the sexual practice you list.  That's all.  Polygamy is an incredibly widespread marital practice cross-culturally.  As such, discussion of it takes up big chunks of almost all of my classes--its very ubiquitousness, though not in the US, demands analysis and discussion, as do the various sexualities.

[beacon1]

I found it absurd, just as I would find it absurd to have a heterosexual, s&m, or polygamist tract, but the Department took the idea into serious consideration.

Here, beacon1, you listed a number of "tracts" that you find absurd.  It is only logical to conclude, as I did, that you believe these all have significant similarities.  My point stands.  You are equating all of these, but you are mistaken in doing so.  Polygamy is quite different in many, many ways than the sexualities or the sexual practice you list.  That's all.  Polygamy is an incredibly widespread marital practice cross-culturally.  As such, discussion of it takes up big chunks of almost all of my classes--its very ubiquitousness, though not in the US, demands analysis and discussion, as do the various sexualities.

Sorry for the confusion - I should not have lumped those together because I gave the wrong impression. I find it absurd to target groups to decide to have a an individualized tract. I could have just as easily said a tract for one legged men, sports fans, or sky divers. Keep in mind that this is a psych program for treatment of psychiatric illness. The assumption made by establishing separate tracts for gays/ lesbians is that they suffer from a different mental illness than what the rest of us suffer. I agree there can be special treatment considerations, but to single them out is a bit much IMO. 

[kitmonk]

I'm sorry, now I'm confused.  Beacon, when you say "tract" several times in your posts, do you actually mean "track"?  As in a separate stream or concentration within your department that would focus exclusively on LGBT (or whatever) issues throughout the course of a degree?

I ask because a "tract" is a written work (I assume you don't mean a piece of land or part of the Catholic liturgy, which are the other definitions).  If this is actually what you mean, then I see nothing wrong with reading an entire article/book/monograph <gasp> about LGBT issues-- or any of the other issues you bring up, for that matter.

Please clarify.

[anthroid]

I'm sorry, now I'm confused.  Beacon, when you say "tract" several times in your posts, do you actually mean "track"?  As in a separate stream or concentration within your department that would focus exclusively on LGBT (or whatever) issues throughout the course of a degree?

I ask because a "tract" is a written work (I assume you don't mean a piece of land or part of the Catholic liturgy, which are the other definitions).  If this is actually what you mean, then I see nothing wrong with reading an entire article/book/monograph <gasp> about LGBT issues-- or any of the other issues you bring up, for that matter.

Please clarify.

I think he does mean track, and his most recent post make a great point.  The APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental illness (not easily, and with significant disagreement) in 1980, and to treat it as such is a mistake.  Certainly, though, there are specific issues associated with homosexuality in the US that need attention for some folks--but those issues are not internal for the gay person but rather socially constructed prejudices.

[kitmonk]

Right on, anthroid!

[boogaloo]

I think that beacon1's splitting of hairs in this issue tends to lead him to miss a larger point.  I doubt that a psychology program with a track for LGBT counseling is suggesting that LGBT individuals have their own diagnoses that do not pertain to anyone else.  However, LGBT clients do have issues that are unique to them, as do victims of trauma, alcoholics, children/adolescents, and all the other groups that have specialized counseling programs geared toward their treatment.

[beacon1]

I think that beacon1's splitting of hairs in this issue tends to lead him to miss a larger point.  I doubt that a psychology program with a track for LGBT counseling is suggesting that LGBT individuals have their own diagnoses that do not pertain to anyone else.  However, LGBT clients do have issues that are unique to them, as do victims of trauma, alcoholics, children/adolescents, and all the other groups that have specialized counseling programs geared toward their treatment.

Sorry for the misuse of the word track, I seem to have gotten off tract... I'm under a lot of stress!

Well you make my point... Victims of trauma do have unique problems, but we don't dedicate a whole set of coursework to treating just those folks.

[boogaloo]

Are you serious?  You chose one item out of my list?  Alcoholics - check, their own set of coursework.  Children/adolescents - check.  People with disabilities -check.  Couples -check. And for specific subsections like trauma, eating disorders, group therapy, mood disorders, multicultural populations etc. people absolutely specialize their training to address the issues of these groups in a more focused way.  At least, at my school's various psych programs they do, and the actual therapists I know do/did. 

Again, though, I feel as if we are arguing over the use of "among" vs "amongst" and completely missing a larger picture.  I begin to think your only intent here is to declare that anything related to LGBT people is irrelevant to your life, in which case - okay.  You win, and it is.

[boogaloo]

I think it's sad that I killed this thread, or rather that I let beacon1 goad me into killing it.  :(

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

I just discovered that one of my Catholic school mates has been in a lesbian relationship for years. Why do I feel such satisfaction in knowing she is successfully "out"?