Pornography is pure reader response theory

One might then extrapolate that there is no such thing as pornography; there is only the premeditated reaction to material that individual readers bring to the table.

The other side of the coin would be, if writers know what the majority reaction will be, are they writing pornography to be aiming at that reaction? If they are writing but aiming at a different goal, such as I believe Last Tango in Paris, Midnight Cowboy, and A Clockwork Orange were all examples, should the more purient and perhaps more common interpretation still evoke a definition as pornography? The litmus test of majority rule, and therefore the definition would be changing every decade or so, at any rate...

Or would the easier thing (conscientiously) be not writing in a fashion that will be taken on the baser level by the majority, to begin with?

Calling something "pornography" is a value judgement, most value judgements are subjective opinion.

As an academic from a science background I find the question semi-opaque. Does it mean: Is pornography a genre defined by the writers intention to/prediction that the reader will be sexually aroused. If so, sure. Seems reasonable. I know that is my intention/goal/prediction in that genre.

If you mean: Is pornography defined by *whether* every reader is aroused, then no. Although if the majority reaction is not what was intended than the prose may not be on target I would expect writer intention to match the majority response of the target demographic only--so when the writer is competant either method might be reasonable functional

But of course, that may not be what was being asked.

p.s. pornography is a term normally interpreted as implying disapproval. Erotica is generally prefered.

Me, I wanna go back to the original meaning and use of pornography; the advertisements, the menus, if you will, of prostitutes.

Pornos = prostitutes; graphos = writings

Then we can use the word to really refer appropriately and specifically to unsolicited sexual products/services spam.

When trying to avoid lexical traps I tend to call what I do sex-writing

Well obviously writer intent and reader response will correspond depending on a lot of things. But the pornier the porn, and the more specific the niche the easier it gets.

In the hands of my target demographic (slash/romance fans) the correlation depends largely on writer skill. The demographic is turned on by depictions of gay sex, I am depicting gay sex. Sex-writing has some of the most overt goals of any genre. There is a little more to it than that, but not much. The reader still brings shades of meaning as I can tell be their responses but the general, uh, thrust tends to, uh, penetrate the writer/reader barrier.

It is largely the same in other areas: A spanking writer writes spanking, a spanky reader gets hot. Etc.

It is largely in the non-erotic aspects of the plot that reader interpretations diverge from my intent. A review states with perfect confidence that my character is an ex-soldier (um, okay, if you like) or attributes reasons for his infidelity etc etc. In BSDM writing is isn't the events that get you in trouble but depicting the surrounding culture with all its rules!

We tend to agree that they had sex and in the immediate sense it was because they were horny. Discourse typically gets synconised very well when describing any innate or emotionally conditioned events for a receptive vouyeur or empath (reader). IMHO, of course.

A little Freud goes a long way

ColoradoGuy said:

So you think I've got it exactly backwards, that erotica is actually an example of what Orwell said he meant by good writing being a transparent pane of glass, with no possiblity of confusion between a writer's intent and a reader's response?

If so, I find that notion fascinating, particularly since the standard cliche I've heard is that a man's most important sex organ is his brain. The process you've described sounds downright Pavlovian to me.

Click to expand...

No, its just fetishistic. Nothing really quite works as well as a fetish.

And Pavlovian is the right word: the subject transfers his pleasure-fulfillment from the "original" (often obviously not in the case of some fetishes) to an associated trigger. Bingo. Works like magic.

I don't quite know what George Orwell would make of it: substitue "pain" for "pane" and try
giving the Orwellian Substitue a spanking.

A recent bit of fetishistic speculation:

http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/seductive-object-or-fetish/

Writing is never a pane of glass but I think purley erotic writing has less curtains than most.

Sexual responses start out innate and become Pavlovian from there, it started to reach operant and abstract levels for many people but that ballast tends to get lost in the dark once the clothes come off. So when talking of the purely erotic goal is isn't much different different from showing a hungry man a photograph of a pie--except that is it a physical need that can be partially met without the "food".

The brain as a sex organ, well. You can add a 'brain' level to erotica to enrich it, but most people devote more of their brain to their inhibitions than to their fantasies. As far as sex organs go, genitals are much more straight forward, really. If a certain man's main sexual organ is his brain I can only conclude he is be doing more thinking that ****ing

If a person likes sex, you know, two people having sex. Quickest method is to bypass the brain and just describe.

If the person has indulged in a lot of Pavlovian conditioning you must negotiate the brain to get to the groin--you might need to describe them being nursed by a large woman whilst wearing soiled nappies.

If a person has indulged in layers of operant and pavlovian conditioning you may need to describe a man being forceable dressed up as a woman and displayed in public against their will in order to get aroused *and* make the work something that could be shelved in ther literature section at Dymocks.

Oh, it is so tiring to involved the brain with its multilayered, imperfect and accute awareness of judgemental observers. A well-defined kink and a discreet ebook, that's a simple way of doing it.

ColoradoGuy said:

If so, I find that notion fascinating, particularly since the standard cliche I've heard is that a man's most important sex organ is his brain. The process you've described sounds downright Pavlovian to me.

Click to expand...

Oy! Like that's not true for chicks?

Well true in a way but as a society we have to set some standards, otherwise it would be okay to distribute child pornography as long as reader response okayed it or it would be okay to publish and distribute a book promoting murder and cannibalism as long as there was a market for it.

=gclare;1111205]One might then extrapolate that there is no such thing as pornography; there is only the premeditated reaction to material that individual readers bring to the table.[/quote]

Drugs are also a market that is driven by response, so, why aren't they legal?

Recently a couple in Rhode Island were arrested for child endangerment because they were found to be having sex in front of the woman's 9 year old daughter. They said that they were doing that so that she would know how to do it. They had her sit ON THE BED so that she was immediately present and wouldn't miss any detail. It was their form of sexual education. Based on 'reader response' and the possibility of no such thing as phonography, one could carry the arguement to say there is no such thing as lewd or lacivious behavior, or perversion, and nothing would be deemed inappropriate.

I'm sure the little girl was _______________.

And, of course, they only had her participate as an observer and refrained from dialoguing or having her participate in any way.

It's a wonderful culture we live in, isn't it?

I'm not quite sure of the point of either comment unless it is to suggest that pornography is some how akin to illegal drugs and child sexual abuse simply because it is a thing people want. Every single voluntary action people perform has that basis to some extent from abuse to heroism. Context is everything.

What I have seen in regards to pornography (if someone wants to put that somehow in the catagory of writing, that's their decision), is that is, in fact, addictive, such as drugs. Humans are largely biochemical beings and function based on chemically induced states. Ted Bundy cited his addiction to pornography as a motivation for the killings that he did.

I believe it is a FINE line between imagination (where alot of fiction writing comes from) and reality. It becomes dangerous when that line is blurred. This culture is famous for blurring that line. MOST writing, including non-fiction, seems to be have at least some reference to actual life events. And, those elements that seem impossible seem to, at some point in time, become actual. Look at all those Buck Rogers stories. As for as anything being prohibited by law, that is all 'old hat' and done. I can't imagaine of a law that has not been broken in real life.

Back to pornograhy being driven by reader response and the possibility of pornography being redefined as not-pornography, does the fact that humans 'do something' make that something 'the thing to do'?

I apologize for not being able to quote a source; if I need to I'll go look one up. However, regarding violence, the consensus seems to be that viewing violent video games/movies increases the violent behavior in children. I had a 3 year old leap onto and bite a teacher's leg because he was acting out a character in a movie he saw recently. The child was not angry nor provoked. He was simply 'in character' and acting out that character's behavior.

Maybe our society is ranked as one of the most violent in the world because of what we ingest mentally. Many people would like to believe they WOULD NEVER act out what they watch or read. That's probably true. But, I believe that as stress levels raise in a person's life, the unthinkable and taboo become real options.

Whatever the divorce rate is in this country, 1 in 2 or whatever, it's high.
Interesting since we have so much sexual freedom and pornography is becoming more and more socially acceptable. Makes me wonder if there is a correlation.

I use to believe that my addictive behaviors did not affect my real life. My mistake.

I think their is a thick and obvious like between fiction and reality for any competant adult. That is why we can write about things that are always bad, like rape and murder, as well as things that are actually good like loving sex, with impunity.

Pornography, words on a page, are in fact nothing at all like drugs. I have yet to see a single case study where a person showed addictive behavior towards prose pornography. And yes, I do read those journal and texts. There is an association between persoality disorders and the use of picture pornogrpahy in some cases but it is seen as symptomatic (not causal) in most cases and failed to be useful in profiling (most pornography users are not disordered by a huge margin). I would be willing to bet that most erotic romance readers are higher functioning than the norm--a typical user being a responsible female head of household.

I don't understand your last sentence at all. I don't know where anyone talked about that particular anti-tautology?