Pornography should be perceived as any given manifestation of sexual content done in whichever media - cinema, theater, literature, television, magazines, art, Internet, etc. Certain definitions emulate the "perverted" and "obscene" that would typical of pornographic manifestations.
Nevertheless, such judgment of prize would disable us to define precisely the current relation of modern society with pornography. Hence this point of view would vary from age to age and depending on the society at hand. As opposed to the pornographic, eroticism would emulate a sexual representation more subtle and linked to love. It is difficult to establish a boundary between the two types of manifestations, which would depend a lot on "the eye of the beholder" a sexual connotation. Some people would decline vehemently, for example, a porn magazine. Others, however, consider of extreme beauty the body figures exhibited in such magazines. Given that the judgment of prize-value varies so much, we would be better off if pursued the definition presented initially on what pornography is all about. Otherwise, emerges the conundrum where modern pornography comes from? Pornography has been about during all the evolution of humanity. Since hominidae begun painting on cave walls, have representations of sexual connotation always been present. As for western pornography, it is strictly connected to the wake of mass-culture, yet in the twentieth century. In the knock off of the popular choice, the female presence was then highlighted. Thus, movies, magazines, spectacles, turned out to be even spicier with images of sex appeal. There was developed the cult of sex appeal; cinema actresses went on worldwide and sexually desired. Alongside, glossy magazines and merchandising dug into jacking up pinups, merging an attractive female imagery to a fridge, washing machine, soda, etc. Such injection of visual sexuality did not have just the objective of directly provoking the male consume. Yet there would appeal to the women's necessity of being desired by men, through imagery that would arouse the male desire and dictate to women their seductive demeanors. Some may say that this kind of publicity is anything but eroticism. Nonetheless, the transformation of an erotic image into a pornographic-one gets done mentally, beauty lies in "the eye of the beholder" figure of speech. A youngster might masturbate by seeing advertisements of female underwear, for instance. On the other hand, imagery of sexual relations, employed in sexual education in school, may not spark any interest in the youth. As stated by William Shakespeare in Hamlet - "there is no such a thing as good or bad, but the thought is what so does it. The difference between pornography and erotica could be sum up in the opposition between the explicit and the implicit. Imagery or histories that had have a plethora of sexual content disclosed without obstacles would be considered pornographic. Whenever a hint of insinuation would be there, such material (film, image, etc) would be an erotic manifestation. To analyze how we differentiate the so-called pornographic manifestations from those erotic, would aid us to understand how we perceive sex. Sex is not an independent form. It is on "each mind" of each and every human who lives in this planet. And that is why certain people feel pleasure by the sight of feet, others in suffering, some others by having it off with same sex individuals, and others in shagging with the opposite sex, and so on and so forth.
By Jonatas Dornelles
Anthropologist
| 
