thanks for your reply, kirstin. i’m not sure it would still be called porn if married couples used it for stimulation. Such a couple would probably not think of it as porn. By this, I am thinking that the word ‘porn’ is less a proper noun, and more a swear word — a term of denigration (For instance, "Passion of the Christ" has been called "porn for Christians"). The word ‘porn’ carries with it connotations that are so negative — one is already starting deep in the hole if one wishes to defend, or redeem it.
i would think that married couples need not be entered into the equation for pornography to be redeemed. why not start with masturbation? the redemption of stimulation, even self-stimulation via various aids — including "pornography" - might be a place to start when contemplating the redemption of sexuality. Such a conversation, though, would require —at the outset- a suspension of whatever negative connotations porn implies.
Alan Moore, the comic book writer, recently published a comic book (with his fiance, Melinda Gebbie) called "Lost Girls", which he calls "an elaborate pornography". The publishers of this comic book wanted him to call it erotica, but he preferred stepping down into that steamy abyss, and wallowing in the low-brow of sexuality, and sexual fantasy. And so he calls his comic book ‘porn’ — deliberately including all negative connotations! It struck me that Alan Moore may be attempting a redemption of pornography. I suppose it waits to be seen if singular efforts like this alter perceptions of the sacred and the carnal, especially given the deep artistic intent of both Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie.
Is this perhaps your point? That it is precisely porn’s negative connotations that are the source of titillation or excitement — even within the security of a stable relationship like marriage?
CanadianIre
Jun 23 2007
02:50 am
thanks for your reply, kirstin. i’m not sure it would still be called porn if married couples used it for stimulation. Such a couple would probably not think of it as porn. By this, I am thinking that the word ‘porn’ is less a proper noun, and more a swear word — a term of denigration (For instance, "Passion of the Christ" has been called "porn for Christians"). The word ‘porn’ carries with it connotations that are so negative — one is already starting deep in the hole if one wishes to defend, or redeem it.
i would think that married couples need not be entered into the equation for pornography to be redeemed. why not start with masturbation? the redemption of stimulation, even self-stimulation via various aids — including "pornography"
- might be a place to start when contemplating the redemption of sexuality. Such a conversation, though, would require —at the outset- a suspension of whatever negative connotations porn implies.Alan Moore, the comic book writer, recently published a comic book (with his fiance, Melinda Gebbie) called "Lost Girls", which he calls "an elaborate pornography". The publishers of this comic book wanted him to call it erotica, but he preferred stepping down into that steamy abyss, and wallowing in the low-brow of sexuality, and sexual fantasy. And so he calls his comic book ‘porn’ — deliberately including all negative connotations! It struck me that Alan Moore may be attempting a redemption of pornography. I suppose it waits to be seen if singular efforts like this alter perceptions of the sacred and the carnal, especially given the deep artistic intent of both Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie.
Is this perhaps your point? That it is precisely porn’s negative connotations that are the source of titillation or excitement — even within the security of a stable relationship like marriage?