Comments on: More Than “Chick Porn”

By: Let’s Talk About Sex Words | Something More

Let’s Talk About Sex Words | Something More — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 02:33:31 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Lynn M

Lynn M — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:16:32 +0000

I agree 100% with Jane’s last paragraph. For me, the thing that transforms romance novels with “hot” or “burning” ratings from being porn is the emotional element. Porn, which for me has a negative connotation (not judging anyone!), involves nameless, faceless participants who are virtually interchangeable. Whereas in romance novels, the specific characters involved do matter. There is more at stake than simple physical excitement for the reader, there is also an emotional investment in what is happening. If you can take the sex scenes out of the book (movie, tv show, etc.) and still have a story, it’s not porn. If taking out the sex aspects leaves you with two people staring at the wall, I’d call it porn. Therefore, I’d disagree with Jane’s roommate in calling romance “chick porn”, or at least argue that using the “porn” as a descriptor simply means indulging in something a person really enjoys, as in “house porn”, “car porn”, or “food porn” all describe specific genres of TV shows.

By: Jill Sorenson

Jill Sorenson — Wed, 30 May 2012 21:16:04 +0000

Hmm. I hope that the sex scenes I write have a purpose in the story (character insights, emotional connection), but they are also meant to arouse. Just as my action scenes are meant to excite. I don’t think I can tell anyone how to define porn, so I’m okay with those who think any sexually stimulating material falls under that umbrella.

What I don’t like is the underlying assumption that high sexual content = low quality. For those of us who like hot books (whether we get aroused or not) well-written sex is part of what makes the reading experience satisfying. Explicit material has value. So call it porn! Just don’t call it trash.

By: Katie (kat)

Katie (kat) — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:36:45 +0000

Well, I think the purpose of most romance novels is to tell a love story not write a sex scene. Sex is used to support the romance not the other way around. I’m sure that is not true in every case but probably the majority. I think it is ignorance that keeps people, such as the author’s roommate , espousing that romance novels are porn for women. It seems far too easy to attack a genre dominated by and for women as something base rather than positive.

By: Jane AAR

Jane AAR — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:14:54 +0000

Katie (Kat) and Ash– I think the biggest distinction that has to be made is the purpose, not the effect. Is stimulation the reason for the level of explicitness, or just a side effect? That is what will determine what is porn and what isn’t, I think. (At least for things that are in those gray areas between what is obviously not, and what obviously is).

By: Katie (kat)

Katie (kat) — Wed, 30 May 2012 17:37:38 +0000

Following that logic any movie or TV show that has a love scene should be classified as pornography since there is bound to be someone stimulated by it. James Bond films should be labeled d**k porn and certainly all those mystery, horror & spy books written by men and featuring sex scenes would fall into that category.

I love Game of Thrones which has some pretty explicit sex scenes but I am not watching this series for sex but for the very engrossing storyline and the delightful Tyrion Lannister played by the sublime actor Peter Dinklage. I’m sure the men who read & watch this series would be offended if their interest in the show/books was dismissed as enjoying pornography.

I read romance for the love story not the sex. Sex is certainly a part of the story but it’s not my focus. We are a very diverse group of people, us romance readers. I’m sure sex has a varying level of importance to the story depending on the reader. For me I’m looking for the very alpha, very protective hero pursing the heroine who is his one true love with the book concluding in a happy ending. I don’t mind sex scenes but what really works for me is dialogue and, with a good arthur, the belief that the hero loves and cherishes the heroine.

By: Ash

Ash — Wed, 30 May 2012 16:50:13 +0000

I think it’s unfair to categorize romance novels as porn. Not that there is anything wrong with watching or reading porn but in my opinion such sweeping generalizations about romance novels undermines all the effort authors put into creating a good story, fleshing out characters, researching etc.

Porn is fundamentally about sex, romance novels are essentially about people finding each other and finding themselves, yes sex is a part of the book but then again sex is a part of relationships so you cant ignore it when you are writing a book about relationships! It is however at the end of the day not the main point of the book but just an aspect of it.

You can learn as much from romance novels as you can from any other book. I think people are a little prejudiced when it comes to romance novels. There are plenty of non romance books out there with sex scenes and I don’t see anyone categorizing them as porn.

If we classify books in the same way we classify movies we would see that they are in no way porn for instance “The English Patient” had sex scenes yet it is not classified as porn. Similarly take tv shows “The Tudors” for instance has plenty of steamy sex scenes yet it is not in anyway classified as porn.

people who assume romance novels are porn are those who haven’t really read them or at least haven’t read any good ones
I think a lot of misconceptions about romance novels are a direct result of its packaging, Thanks to amazingly generic titles in which variants of word like “seduction” “pleasure” “surrender” “rouge” or “rake” are emblazoned on a cover where a half dressed couple is groping each other people will always assume that the content of said books will be salacious.

p.s I apologize for the length of the post. I got a little carried away .

By: Jane AAR

Jane AAR — Wed, 30 May 2012 15:42:07 +0000

LizMc2– I meant the latter. Sex of any kind can be a part of emotional development, oral sex in particular; I think it is a far more intimate act than “regular” sex. It is the level of graphicness that I question.

Katie O’Conner– I like your term a lot- it made me actually LOL.

By: Liz Mc2

Liz Mc2 — Wed, 30 May 2012 15:04:38 +0000

Interesting post; I’m less and less sure what I think about these issues. I did want to ask about one thing you said, though. Did you mean that a blowjob is not sex or couldn’t be used to develop/explore the emotional connection between a couple? Or did you just mean detailed physical description of the sex isn’t always necessary to show the emotional development? because I’d disagree with the former, but think you have a good point on the latter.

PS Your roommate is wrong about women and porn. Studies show women *are* physically aroused by porn; in fact, straight women respond to a wider range of porn than straight men. That’s different from how a woman feels about that arousal or whether she likes the way a lot of porn depicts sex, of course, but women don’t need emotion to be physically aroused.

By: Ruby Jones

Ruby Jones — Wed, 30 May 2012 14:23:52 +0000

I’m with Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”