I think the point of the article is that all media is entertainment, and journalism has lost it's informant pretense. A legit point, I don't care for porn bashing though.
The fact that there is a significant movement toward legitimacy and depth in pornography is a testament to that fact. And I have considerable respect for sites that encourage amateur content, in the (perhaps naive) hope that it will encourage more realistic expectations among the sexually inexperienced.
However, the real point I'd like to make is this: you are right when you mention that the author was actually discussing the perils of everything being entertaining. He'd do well to read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death. It is downright chilling to read when you realize it was written in the eighties as the cultural impact of pervasive television was beginning to become apparent.
That's because the internet has stripped profits away. It's like reality shows being the trend in television because expensive productions don't have as much profit margin as they used to.
My view of porn is essentially what Naomi Wolfe's was in 2003: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/
The only thing I'd add is that as we become more saturated in stimulation, it takes more extremes to get the dopamine hit. This goes for porn or anything else he mentions in his article.
I think we can all agree that erotica is a proper art form. It's nudes in tasteful poses, usually with artistic intent. Hell, one could argue that most art produced in the renaissance was erotica. Or the Statue of David for instance.
Ok so that's art.
Similarly, we all consider most types of drawings to be art. People drawing on canvas to produce emotionally and visually stimulating stuff has always been art.
Then take Pollock for instance. He is the complete bastardization of visual art. Pure colour and emotion with wanton disregard for any "form".
That is still considered art.
However, when you do the same to erotica and come up with porn ... it suddenly isn't art anymore?
Why?
Erotica is art because it's beautiful. Sex stories, however explicit, is beautiful. Hentai are often beautiful because they are drawn by artists who care about beauty.
Porn are usually not beautiful. They have ugly characters and they are often completely forgettable.
I didn't say painting aren't art. I say that beautiful things are not art. That being said, beautiful is a spectrum. So in my view, something could be art if it is slightly beautiful or done with some slight skills.
However, the ultimate test is whether or not it would be mistaken as trash.
Thought I'd share that. :)
By this definition, porn is probably the only art :/
In fact, the OP is slightly off about the question of actual porn--porn is more or less the distilled version of erotica, not film, that takes away the art.
Now if you try to make porn, or make something that has the superficial appearance of porn, and then by accident or design end up creating something that's capable of greater intellectual or emotional depth, maybe that could be art. For instance, if the girl was holding the camera, it would be a subversive commentary on the male gaze. Creating art like that in the nominal form of pornography would in fact be deeply ironic simply because porn isn't art. (It wouldn't necessarily be erotica, because you've distilled the art away from the erotica to make the porn, and then added a different, ironic aspect of art on top of it.)
I don't think that holds true for everyone. My observation is that some people are primarily seeking emotional release, which may or may not lead to or involve "physiological release". It seems to me that emotional appeal is a large factor in much of what we call art.
The manga world is often in stark contrast to the reality tubes. Some of them will make you angry and some will make you fell in love with the characters. They are also often beautiful.
Even though they are high quality, they might as well be mass produced. The reality tubes is mass produced but is of bad quality.
Also the sex drive is quite important for the human species. It's a huge motivator.
This discussion reminds me a bit of the "sugar/fructose" discussion the other day. Humans are built to crave sugary, high-calorie food. Modern society allows for an endless supply of sugar. Cue rampant obesity.
I think it's beneficial to question everything; to completely detach oneself from the hivemind. Just because everyone watches porn (or it provides short-term positive benefits) does not mean it's innately good, or could/should be consumed in endless quantities, or has no negative implications.
Real ones or just pictures and videos? Big difference.
And most animals would see a Miró and pee on it. I don't see how is that helpful in determining whether porn is beneficial or not.
- Hacker News
- Internet
- Electricity
- Toilets
Porn is a reaction to our cultural practices from the past. If it weren't for porn, maybe our societies would be more open sex-wise.
Can I ask on what do you base this? Because I see sexually liberated subcultures making and sharing their own (non-commercial) porn. http://www.freedomporn.org/ is a good example.
(from "A Feminist Defense of Pornography"; can be found by Googling it; originally included the link but post became dead immediately after submitting and I think that's why.)
"
* It gives a panoramic view of the world's sexual possibilities. This is true even of basic sexual information such as masturbation. It is not uncommon for women to reach adulthood without knowing how to give themselves pleasure.
* It allows women to "safely" experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity. The world is a dangerous place. By contrast, pornography can be a source of solitary enlightenment.
* It offers the emotional information that comes only from experiencing something either directly or vicariously. It provides us with a sense how it would "feel" to do something. "
I'd think the same would also be true for men.
Women use and enjoy porn the same as men do - visual to physiological and to release. Period.
Porn is beneficial to women in many ways as consumers. Until people wake up to this, revenue streams and culture (of consent and equality, experience and discourse) alike will be hobbled.
Your heart is in the right place. But you're missing the rest of reality, as is this entire HN discussion.
The post I replied to asked "Well, what's the benefit of porn?" and I felt the physiological aspects were already covered. There was no need for me to correct it to say "women like the physiological aspects, too" since I already know that to be true and didn't see anybody stating otherwise who needed to be corrected.
probably a good indication that the article is pretty spot on.