As of late, we've been discussing pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality in my Social Problems class. Yesterday we were discussing what porn actually is. After a lot of thought, I came up with a brilliant definition. I raised my hand and said, "could porn be any sort of media that causes sexual stimulation?" My prof kind of shook his head as if my statement had some sort of validity, while some of the other students chuckled. I thought it was a good answer, that is until I started thinking about it more.
By the definition I gave, a picture of a vacuum cleaner could be considered porn. After all, in our world, there must be some sick person out there who could be sexually aroused by a picture of a vacuum. Anything is possible. On the ride home I continued to think about this. Surely, there is a level of subjectivity when defining pornography yet, there are some movies and magazines that, no questions about it, are porn. They just are, no matter who trys to say it's "art."
After much thought I came up with this distinction: There are some forms of media that are pornographic in nature and are used -I hope we know what I mean by "used"- as porn, and there are some, that are used as porn, but are not pornographic in nature. A porno movie would be an example of the first. The makers of the "film" intend on that "film" to elicit sexual arousal from it's audience, and it does... ten billion dollars worth. An example of this that isn't so obvious would be a commercial that uses sex to sell it's product. How many times have you watched a commercial and thought, "what does a woman in a bikini have to do with this product?" This commercial is pornographic in nature because it is intended to elicit a sexual response -albeit, not an intense one-, and could be used as porn.
So, what about something that isn't pornographic in nature, but could be used as porn. Well, my vacuum analogy would be one example, but a less weird one would be an ad for women's shorts. What if someone who had a strong fetish for legs picked up an ad showing a girl wearing shorts? The ad is geared towards women, and convincing them that they can look that good, yet in the hands of the right person could provoke intense sexual arousal.
I'm sure I won't settle on the ideas I outlined above, but I wish I would have made this distinction in class on Monday.
3 comments:
what about anything that misappropriates the true essence of sexuality?
This post was meant to define pornography from a more sociological perspective, and so making moral judgements are beyond the scope of this post.
However, I do think that your definition might be too broad. I agree that pornography does misappropriate the true essence of sexuality but prostitution does as well, and I wouldn't include prostitution as a form of pornography. Although, I would say pornography is a form of prostitution.
Post a Comment