of the major verboten areas of female breasts (particularly the nipples) or genitalia (either male or female). It suggests sex but has no straightforward depiction of sex.(A total aside - look at that picture to the left. There's no way Allison could wear that underwear with that leotard.)
That, I think, is one of the problems with defining porn. I think Dazzler: The Movie is porn and Omaha the Cat Dancer is not.
Let's start with a loose definition of porn. I'm not going into the Supreme Court definition because I don't want to get too hung up on legalism. Besides, as the late Justice Potter Stewart said, their definition basically boils down to "I know it when I see it." So, I'm defining porn thusly: A depiction of humans or others creatures that closely mirror human form that involves sex in an offensive manner. That's pretty wide open because it involves everyone's subjective view of what's offensive. A lot of definitions involve phrases about artistic or scientific
merit, but that's not terribly helpful or less subjective, either, so I'm leaving it out. I'm not going to touch on child porn here, which is a whole other thing and shouldn't be confused with depictions of sex involving adults, fictional or real.
merit, but that's not terribly helpful or less subjective, either, so I'm leaving it out. I'm not going to touch on child porn here, which is a whole other thing and shouldn't be confused with depictions of sex involving adults, fictional or real.
I don't find Omaha the Cat Dancer offensive. For starters, I don't think there's anything wrong with human nudity (despite the poor maintenance of the form by most humans). I wear clothes as a practical matter and a legal requirement, being rather pale and living in a climate with cold winters and hot summers. Frostbite and sunburn make for a good reason to wear clothes. Jail's another. However, if I lived in some idyllic climate where I wouldn't be damaged by the weather without clothes, I'd be comfortable being naked. I'd miss pockets, though. I like pockets. No way I'd be naked but for a fanny pack. That would be really bad.Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I also don't have a problem with depictions of adult people having consensual sex. That's what's in Omaha. Ok, not people. Funny animals who resemble 
people, especially when it comes to sexual anatomy. Regardless, the stories in Omaha involve people having sex with other people because they want to, with the one exception of a prostitute (and she avers that her profession is her choice). And in that exception there are dire consequences, so I don't have a problem there. Actually, I don't have a problem with prostitution, either, but that's another discussion.
people, especially when it comes to sexual anatomy. Regardless, the stories in Omaha involve people having sex with other people because they want to, with the one exception of a prostitute (and she avers that her profession is her choice). And in that exception there are dire consequences, so I don't have a problem there. Actually, I don't have a problem with prostitution, either, but that's another discussion. I'm not posting any of the pictures from Omaha that show people having sex because it's not that sort of web site, and I'm not in charge here, but take my word for it. There's lots of sex in Omaha. On the other hand, there's even more plotting and story telling. The reasons various people are having sex are part and parcel to the stories told. It's certainly tititllating, but it's also in keeping with the story.
Dazzler, on the other hand, is offensive to me. Not because Allison likes to look at herself na
ked in the mirror. That's no big deal, even if it has the coy angles to cover up the bits. Dazzler is offensive to me because not only is an attempted rapist not punished at all, he's made out to be some sort of angel at heart who should be pitied, if not looked upon fondly, as he is by Allison. Not that he's shown to grow as a person or change at all. Oh, he apes penitence after conning Allison into a platonic relationship, which he maintains only to the point where she decides she wants sex with him, but he's still the same callow Hollywood player looking out only for himself. Even the "love" of Allison doesn't make him any better as a person, as he betrays her easily when extorted to do so by the supposed actual villain of the story.
ked in the mirror. That's no big deal, even if it has the coy angles to cover up the bits. Dazzler is offensive to me because not only is an attempted rapist not punished at all, he's made out to be some sort of angel at heart who should be pitied, if not looked upon fondly, as he is by Allison. Not that he's shown to grow as a person or change at all. Oh, he apes penitence after conning Allison into a platonic relationship, which he maintains only to the point where she decides she wants sex with him, but he's still the same callow Hollywood player looking out only for himself. Even the "love" of Allison doesn't make him any better as a person, as he betrays her easily when extorted to do so by the supposed actual villain of the story.
In fact, the primary offense here is that Allison is passed off as some sort of admirable person, though she uses her sexual appeal to get a movie and to live a life of luxury. She provides sex to a detestable person, apparently because he turns out to be skilled at it, and has no sense of regret in any of her actions, with the sole exception of getting fat, which she isn't. I argue that Dazzler: The Movie is porn because it offensively portrays totally unadmirable people as admirable and uses titillating sexual encounters for nothing in the least germane to the abysmal story.
And to top off the offensive, Allison actually compares herself to Jackie Robinson in her plight as a persecuted mutant, while wearing a negligee and just after having had her required dosage of rapist lovin'. 'Cause, you know, Jackie Robinson used sex to get to the big leagues. Branch Rickey had a whole other agenda. Ah, no.
What say you?
In our humble opinion, as amateur comics pornographer:
ReplyDeleteYou're injecting a fair amount of character critique into your definition of what is pornographic. Whether or not a work is porn depends on its intended use and desired end, so to speak. It's not whether or not the characters involved in the depicted acts are portrayed as "admirable" or "unadmirable," but the intended utility of the work.
Is Dazzler: The Movie intended as fap fuel? Not explicitly if it's published by Marvel, and here, dear sir or madam, is the critical difference.
It's a poorly-written, poorly-executed work, to be sure, and it also features Dazzler, who's always been kind of a lame character, not that it matters, but that doesn't make it pornographic.
The debate you've presented is clearly one of character and plot quality (to say nothing of morality), not genre.
Not merely one of character and quality of writing. The intent of Dazzler: The Movie was to provide, at point, sexual titilation, without furtherance of its dim plot. My other post about the book addresses more of the plot shortcomings.
ReplyDeleteBy your definition of porn Omaha isn't porn, either. The intention of the creators isn't to get the reader off. The intent is to tell a good story that so happens to involve sexually active characters and frank depiction of that activity.
What, then, is porn, which was my original question? Is it just something that's intended for the sexual gratification of the viewer? I'd argue that Dazzler is far closer to that standard than Omaha.
Pornography is, to my knowledge, purely about sexual titillation. That's what separates it from erotica, which attempts to titillate whilst maintaining some measure of plot (granted, there's some bleed-over: much of Frank Thorne's post-Red Sonja work toes the line).
ReplyDeleteLook at H-Doujins: many of them, thought they involve familiar characters in familiar settings, make only the barest nod towards plot, instead concerning themselves with the graphic depiction of the sex act(s).
It's not the presence of graphic depiction that makes it pornography, but the prevalence of said, up to the point of exclusion of all else--thereby making the work not one to engage the mind or emotions of the reader so much as to elicit a physical response. Where an erotic work will appeal to the reader on multiple levels (intellectual and emotional as well as sexual/physical), pornography aims purely below the belt--in the same way that something like Faces of Death aims solely at the stomach (cringe factor). There's a great Linda Williams essay on this--about "body genres" in film, to which I'll link if I can find it online.