FA+
Shop
[Discuss] What is Porn?
10 years ago
╭╭━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━╮╮
Terms of Service and FAQ
I'm REALLY tired after work, ohman. My feet are killing me.
But anyway... zwerewolf and I were discussing this yesterday: What do you consider to be porn?
What makes an image porn? Content, rating, etc. Does it have to have penetration? Does it even have to be visible? I've seen some Explicitly marked pieces where one character is sitting facing the other, and they could even be cuddling for all we know, without the context of it being sex.
I'm working on the YCH I raffled off a while ago, so I'm wondering what you consider to be 'pornographic'.
Let's discuss! C:
Being asexual I don't have the world's best exposure to this stuff so I'm especially fascinated to hear what others have to say c:
Porn should be explicit specifically, honestly. I think most people do agree on that. There are artistic nudes which are not necessarily sexual.
Enticing poses are just usually considered pinups, sometimes risque but if there's no nudity, it's not porn.
Artistic Nudity Is Here.
Mature - Nudity w/ or wo/ sugesstive themes, Tastful nudity
Porn - Sexual Acts, Jizz, Sex, Masturbation, etc.. Basically when the art is made specifically for arousal.
So what would you consider the piece I am working on now? It's F/F, one is nude the other is clothed (mostly hahah) and one character is teasingly fingering the other. No full penetration, still pretty tasteful, but some obvious sexual themes going on.
http://seishukuumou.verfans.com/tem.....ortiaComp1.png
https://www.weasyl.com/help/ratings/changes
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/.....kfdaenjc?hl=en
Pinups aren't always considered porn for me, even if there's an obvious intent to arouse the viewer, with nudity. If the posing is natural or modest, it's just a pinup. If the posing is explicit in nature (spreading things open, accentuating the curves of the genitals through clothing, etc, that's porn, even if they aren't actually performing an act.
Also, that WIP is looking hella fine. I like the lil snaggle teeth.
I've been trying to work on it all week but my hand really doesn't enjoy all of the lining I've been doing lately and work kicked me in the butt today, so it looks like I'm going to have to push it off again /tuches sadly
This is more the point I was trying to hit on with the pinup thing. I personally consider a really suggestive, nude (or at least partially nude) piece where the character is posed in a specific way where it's like 'HEY HERE'S MY VAJAYJAY LET ME WIGGLE IT IN YOUR FACE' to be porn as well, but I know a lot of other people don't. It's an interesting topic :3c
What is porn
Oh baby, don't yiff me
Don't yiff me no more
Oh, baby don't yiff me
Don't yiff me no more
What is porn
Yeah
Oh, I don't know why you're not there
I give you my porn, but you don't care
So what is right and what is wrong
Gimme a sign
(...) I could write a lot more about this. If you want I can flesh out my reasoning a lot more in the morning (it's midnight for me).
It's about 11 here for me as well and I too am about to call it a night~
So, to begin, porn being created through a creative process, I believe it's fair to say it could be considered as an art form. This art form is different from others in that its sole purpose is to convey an idea or even an ideal of something sexually arousing, in order for the consumer of the artwork to become sexually aroused or to enhance his/her arousal. From there, porn has two main attribute.
Firstly, it aim to fulfill or help fulfill a need/desire, while some other artworks equally explicit in nature could be created with the intend of commenting society or to otherwise get a message across, to communicate something. Secondly, in order to be effective, it must be able to convey the idea or ideal well enough as well as feature an idea of what is arousing which is the same or similar to the one of the consumer. For example, X might not like vanilla sex, but could be really into Y fetish. Artwork depicting Y in a sexually arousing way would certainly be porn. One thing to note though is that this second attribute isn't at the core of what constitute porn, and, as such, something which fail to correctly depict the idea/scene and fail to be sexually arousing could still be considered porn, albeit some very bad one, if the creator was trying to succeed those failed thing.
The most important aspect I believe is the concept of intend from the creator, if, when creating his/her artwork, it was meant to be porn. However, defining porn solely from this is problematic in that the true intend of the creator is something immaterial and more often than not unknown to everyone except the creator his/herself. Then, I'd think that what really matters is not necessarily the intend itself, but how this intend can be perceived in the artwork through perceptible signs or elements.
I'd say there's two kind of perceptible signs of the creator's intend. Firstly there the details of the artwork itself. For example does it focus on the sexually arousing aspects? Secondly you have the context surrounding the artwork, which include everything that can influence our perception of said artwork but that is exterior to it. For example, does it come from a known porn artist? Was it found on an obscure website or in a museum? Etc.
The most important however are the two dimensions of these perceptible signs of intend, the first being which signs did the creator infused his/her artwork with, on purpose and the second being how does the consumer(s) and everyone else perceive said signs. The problem with the signs willingly put into the artwork by the creator is that they are meaningless unless they are also perceived by the consumer(s) and everyone else, which makes these specific purposeful signs as problematic as the true intend. The perception of the signs by the consumer(s) and everyone else would then be what truly matters, despite the fact this perception can at best be influenced by the intend and at worst completely ignore it.
Finally, I'd say something is porn when everything (or almost) leads everyone (or most people) to believe something was created with the intend to be porn, to sexually arouse the consumers of the artwork, independently of the actual intend of the creator and of the success in achieving its goal.
That aside.
Porn is, to me, explicit sexual actions. I could go into length but the TL;DR of this is "Genetalia being touched" (whether that be by another character's genitalia/mouth/hands/whatever OR masturbating oneself. If the genetalia is being touched, it's porn).
Another addition to that is- if sexual fluids are shown (i.e. the image shows the scene *after* the orgasm, but semen/vaginal lubricants are clearly visible).
Third addition to that- lewd poses. Basically if the focal point of the image is the character's genitalia, I'd consider it porn.
In terms of "mature but not quite porn"- usually things along the lines of nude pin-ups. Nips and genetalia are showing. Males might even be erect- however, the genetalia is not being touched, no fluids are being shown, etc. I've personally labelled quite a few things as "Mature" (The middle filter) here on FA that include erect penis and I've not once been flagged?
With pin-ups, while the pose might be intended to be somewhat provocative, it's not outright displaying oneself.
As for "Tasteful nudity"- it's exactly that. The character is nude but is in no visible state of sexual arousal, nor are they attempting to be provocative to the viewer. (i.e. an image of a shower/bath. Skinny dipping. Changing clothes. Just standing there.)
AS FOR KINKS- I'll go over some of the more common "taboo" kinks (okay, not really taboo per this community as much, but still somewhat taboo).
BDSM: For those who practice BDSM as a lifestyle, it's not about sexuality (while sex may be included, it's not the forefront) BDSM is about control. It's about, as a submissive, giving up control to someone you trust- trusting that they'll care for you and address your needs. As a Dominant, it's about taking that control graciously and making a conscious effort to protect and satisfy your submissive.
IMO, the same rules apply. If a character is clothed (even if that means they're clothed in leather bondage gear and carrying a riding crop) as long as their bits are covered, it's not mature art. It may not necessarily be something you should view at work (TBH you probably shouldn't be looking at furry art at work in the first place- because both lifestyles are seen as taboo to "normal" folks).
Vore: Depends on the contents. Some people don't necessarily want to see vore, which is why many artists use a thumbnail system as a warning. The act of soft vore (i.e. eating the prey with no harm to the prey- prey is swallowed whole, may or may not include an internal shot) is not, in my opinion, mature. It's just an animal swallowing another animal- and while it's not necessarily my cup of tea, it's not overtly sexual either.
Again, the TL;DR- if genitalia is being shown and it's aroused, it is at the very least mature. If said genitalia is being touched/stimulated, good chance you'll wanna slap that explicit/porn label on there.
The big one that people tend to have questions on is gore. A good rule of thumb to follow (again, this is just opinion) is that a)if you do gore, you'll wanna use thumbnails because people don't always want to see it b)if the character (as a mortal) can die of the bloodloss or wounds inflicted (i.e. snuff) it'd be wise to use the explicit tag. c)if it's a more minor amount of blood (cuts and scrapes, small blood loss) it's probably safe to label as just mature.
Again, if genitalia is being touched, it probably would be wise to label it as porn. Genitalia being shown= nudity, but not necessarily porn.
The thing to keep in mind is this- while there ARE people with these specific kinks (i.e. get turned on by vore, or gore, or what-have-you), they are the only ones. If someone doesn't have a kink for, say, gore- they see the blood and the nudity, but it's not arousing to them (and that's the majority of people).
Your labels should reflect the majority, because in terms of getting flagged/banned/etc, majority rules.
This quickly turned into a discussion about what to do and what not to do when tagging art which was not my intention hahah, I was more curious about everyone's personal opinions on the matter because like you mentioned, there are grey areas and some perceive things differently than others (especially in relation to kinks) and I was just extremely curious to hear what everyone had to say.
Thank you for sharing! I think I agree with pretty much everything you've said.
As I said- I don't really have any kinks or sexual attraction, so I kinda have to use things like that as an example.
Personally, while I know in my head that two characters having sex is pornographic... It doesn't do anything for me. I don't feel any arousal from it.
So, to be honest, that's the only way I could think of to explain it?
I don't really discriminate against many kinks- the only things I usually take issue with are the typical scat/child porn/beastiality sort of thing.
I find gore/blood to be beautiful (I grew up with SO MANY classic horror games) but I don't find it arousing really.
Vore... the only thing about vore that really bothers me is the lack of realism. I realize that we're a fandom of walking, talking, multicolored animals (and unrealistic hybrids) but the lack of realism in certain types of vore really throws me off.
I am an active Dominant in a BDSM relationship and I don't even really find that sexy either. I'm absolutely honored by the control that is given to me. I enjoy being able to please my submissive, however... it doesn't really turn me on.
I;m just... difficult. XD
Now, lol. to make it more complicated, fetishes can be involved in porn, but that doesn't make that fetish porn so much as the individual's interest in the subject that makes it porn. As such, just for example some get aroused by feet/paws, or tickling/spanking.... off color random things that other people don't fetishize, some people get aroused by. Does that make it porn? That's up to the person drawing it. Personally if I drew a picture of some character's feet but they were clothed and it wasn't meant to arouse someone? not porn. if there's a fetish element involved to it? I'd probably at least mark it mature or adult if it was a waaaay out there fetish that I wouldn't want to expose someone that is very vanilla to, i'd likely also add a TW and thumbnail if that's the case, or just straight up upload to my scraps so not as many people see it.
Gonna play the devil's advocate here and ask then if that works the other way around? What if there -is- explicit content, but the artist (maybe featured in a real existing art gallery/museum) did not intend for it to be specifically arousing as much as maybe for it to send a message--for it to repel the viewer--etc.? I know (I can't pull one off the top of my head because my contemporary ark knowledge is very shabby) that there are actually quite a few popular artists currently that play with obscenity, flesh, and sex in their works specifically to convey a message (not just for the pornographic aspect). So would you consider this to be porn, or no?
..I'm saying this all with the pretense of course that I neither agree or disagree with you and am just really interested in hearing your thoughts :)
I mean someone can use really dark sexual ritualistic based themes in their artwork, in order to try to spread the message. But if the message isn't understood or the base of what they're showing art-wise is going to be seen by the vast majority as pornography, they should at least be aware it might be seen that way rather than get offended/confused on why it was seen that way.
If you tend to follow what "most" of the world deems as being tasteful, chances are you're not going to be seen as a porn peddler/smut artist/whatever. If you look at what is sold as pornography and model your work based on that, chances are you're being asked to be labeled as a porn artist.
Personally, I dislike the contemporary pieces using nudity in real life. AKA nude models with airbrushed clothing, or shocking statements using live models during a show, or even seeing nude statues. I think there's a lot better ways to make something sensual or shocking than resorting to nude human flesh. But that's -my- opinion. I do see those things as mostly a cash-grab as sex is the easiest way to sell something imo, so it's not super creative for me.
I once had an English professor who asked the class what they thought poetry was. Everyone fumbled around for quite a while trying to create a definition, of course failing miserably, because it's an incredibly difficult thing to define. Her answer, after she was satisfied with our attempts, was that poetry is anything that puts one in a poetry-perceiving mood. I think the same can be said for porn. /shrugs
As to what I personally consider porn, although I'm not one to consume it in the traditional sense, it tends to be imagery of sexual acts (including breast/nipple play, as society at large has deemed it necessary to sexualize such things) whether explicitly shown or visually implied. I think another really important issue in this discussion comes from the fact that the word 'porn' is so...negatively looked upon? It carries a weight full of stigma and shame, something that should be hidden and kept a dirty secret. I dunno, I get that it's a 'bad thing' because OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN but? To be honest? The reason I like erotic/pornographic art because it captures feelings and emotions that other forms of art simply cannot. It displays an aspect of humanity that is part of the larger picture, and I think that is beautiful.
Idk if that made any sense because I literally just woke up. @-@ The image is looking lovely, by the way~
And thank you <3 I'm really excited to finish it, whenever that happens ; u ;