At its basest, it's written or visual meant for sexual arousal.
Porn can be something you make for yourself. Or for a partner
Porn can be artistic. Art can be pornographic.
Porn can be a documentary record of a community, or a person
Or "porn" can be a commercial venture. Or all of the above.
Porn can be something you make for yourself. Or for a partner
Porn can be artistic. Art can be pornographic.
Porn can be a documentary record of a community, or a person
Or "porn" can be a commercial venture. Or all of the above.
Comments
It's not the fault of the art form of porn itself it's the people. We already went through prohibition once lets not miss the point twice.
All work under capitalism is coerced.
All work under capitalism is therefore bad, but you only want to institute a blanket ban (which empowers the state monopoly on violence) on the one thing? Seems pretty suspicious.
It's not one body type or style.
It's not a drug or mysterious mesmerizing force.
It's not defined by studios or platforms or monetization.
It's not expression limited to "the male gaze" or "objectification" or "exploitation."
It's just speech about desire — erotics
Attacks on porn flatten this. It's propaganda, using particular element they define ("violence! misogyny! availability!) as a justification to censor all of it
But when we hear politicians (or antiporn activists) talk about "the porn industry" or "the effect of porn" or "pornified society," understand that it's rhetorical switch.
They want to shut down all sexual expression. They want enforced modesty.
Being able to openly discuss sexuality is a sign of a healthy, society.
Being ashamed of it is not.