The Friday Sex Blog [Erotica vs. Pornography]

¡Hola! Everybody...
I had a pleasant day yesterday spent with the woman I identified as “the Lush.” No, she’s not a lush, and she was quite embarrassed, but I assured she had nothing to be embarrassed about. Getting drunk on New Year’s Eve? Yeah! Wow! She’s a strange one!

Well, what she was really embarrassed about was her sexual advances toward me, and I teased her mercilessly about it. LOL! We have mutual friends and apparently, the New Year’s party host had assured her I would be there, so she’s had designs on me. Women! Humph!

Yes, she remembered everything and was cognizant of the fact that we could’ve had sex if I had pushed the envelope, but she was thankful I didn’t because, like me, she wants to be alert when it happens...

* * *

-=[ Erotica vs. Pornography ]=-

“The difference between pornography and erotica is packaging.”

-- John Preston

Since this is the first sex blog of the year, I should start off with the raison de etre for its existence. I realize there are new readers who may not know me and I know there are countless lurkers I have no clue about -- there are people who read me that I don’t know. Therefore, a little explanation regarding my reasons for writing about sex should be in order. However, I don’t such a blog ready this day, so you’ll just have to guess my intentions and motivation and pick up clues here and there. Suffice it to say that I believe Americans are some of the most sexually naïve and repressed people on the planet. This blog (posted only on Fridays) is an attempt, of sorts, to set the record straight.

Today’s post might get me deleted from The ‘Ply/ y360...

Language is probably the only human instinct and as such is one of our most powerful tools. How we use language to describe sex is both telling a self-fulfilling prophesy. Take today’s photo by the well-known photographer Helmut Newton. His work is often featured in mainstream publications (he was, after all, a great fashion photographer), and some would call this “erotica” as opposed to “pornography.”

Bullshit!

The whole question regarding the difference between erotica and pornography is a bullshit debate. For me, it’s a non-question. In actuality, it’s an anxious plea for approval rather than real dive into dialog.

This debate is a consequence of the repression of sexual speech. If we thought of sex as a matter of taste and individuality, as we do with the foods we eat, we wouldn’t ask stupid questions like, “Is it erotic food or is it pornographic food?” “Is it the kind of food for men or the kind of food for women?” “Should it be eaten in public or hidden away?” No, we would most likely say, “Eat! This is what keeps you alive.” (And please! for the muthafuckas who can’t read, this isn’t a discussion on the legal definition of obscenity!)

This is a tiring and tired argument. My intention is to squelch any further discussion on this sorry excuse of an argument because attempting to answer it with any authority is undo any progress we have made regarding sexual expression. The argument itself is reactionary, and it needs to be stripped naked -- its pious garments ripped off.

Now, I want to you to look at the following. I consider it art -- and I could care less whether it’s called erotica or pornography. Many of you will call it child pornography and posting it will probably get me kicked off The ‘Ply/ y360:

This is tangential to my discussion, but I think it’s necessary. Sturges has been attacked as a child pornographer, his studio raided and his equipment confiscated (the case was later thrown out of court). His work is core to my post today, however, because it hits at the very essence of how we arbitrarily exclude what’s sexual and what isn’t sexual, what’s accepted and what’s not. And believe me, this whole question is really about the acceptance (or rejection) of sexuality.

Some critics have condemned his work as thinly disguised underage pornography hiding behind the veil of fine art. Sturges and his defenders point to the “innocence” of his pictures of nude adolescents. More logically, Sturges criticizes the random division of people and their bodies into sexualized adults (over 18) and supposedly asexual children (under 18). The question really is: Should tasteful, non-exploitative erotic photography of adolescents be allowed? Is such a thing even possible? The photography of Jock Sturges presents a powerful case for the affirmative.

I would add that subjecting children to fear and teaching to be ashamed of their sexuality (erotophobia) is the cruelest abuse.

Here’s what people really want to hear when they attempt to make the distinction between erotica and porn: “Yes, based on conventions, society has decided that my fantasies and my sexual identity are valid, beautiful, and a turn-on to boot... but that person over there, sitting in the corner, their sexual expression is totally evil.”

Then, depending on whether you prefer the insinuation of erotica or the label of porn, you pin the preferred label on yourself and the creepy, icky label on the other person. Mission accomplished!

What’s truly creepy is creating such a dishonest discrimination to begin with. The truth of the matter is that your sexual speech is no better, more attractive, healthier, or morally superior than anyone else’s. The most intelligent thing to say to yourself when you encounter a style of sexuality unknown to you -- which can often be offensive, frightening, or unimaginable -- is to remind yourself of a variation on a Golden Rule: “Let them who are without desire cast the first stone.”

There are readers who are deeply appalled by the idea of sexual sadomasochism, which is often identified as pornographic. This form of sexual aversion is often accompanied by the rationalization that the only explanation for it would be an abusive and unloving childhood. The simple idea that it could be a matter of erotic taste seems unbelievable and even callous to them.

I would like to remind people that this kind of judgment -- the pathologizing of sexual behavior -- has been used with other forms of sexual preferences over the years, most notoriously with homosexuality. The kindest thing that was ever said about being queer, before the 1970s, was that homosexuals had endured tragic abuse and neglect in their families and that it twisted them for life. It was impossible to believe that such sexual desire could be either healthy or genuine.

But the real danger about such debates is that they are often settled by ignorance on what alarmists think people on the other side are doing. People who cringe at the idea of pornography have an inflamed concept and dangerous idea of it than the actual article can ever live up to. Generally, pornography is associated with the masculine and is supposed to be cruder -- something you buy at some sleazy place. Erotica is so respectful, you’ll find it in mainstream magazines (indeed, some of the best pornographic artists are fashion photographers). Think of Sister Wendy, who hosted a popular show where she critiqued the Great Masters on public television, lavishing praise on Renaissance portraits that display pubic hair.

I guess the point of all this is that the only thing being degraded is the notion that erotic expression deserves a place in public life -- a place entirely apart from banal commercialism and the dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. The prudes seem to have no problem with using sex to sell cars, or the violent explosion of imagery on Saturday morning cartoons, but squawk to high heaven if they see a Jock Sturges or David Hamilton.

We’re fearful of our own faces in erotic bliss, in the throes of desire. Perhaps it’s time we finally grew up and embrace our sexuality while throwing away the shame that binds us.

In Lust,

Eddie