Originally Posted by Joykins
The problem with trying to define "porn" is it ends up being one of those "I know it when I see it" things.
It's clear that romance as a literary genre is not porn. There are plenty of romances that have no sex, or no explicit sex in them. And there are certainly also romances that edge right up against the border with erotica and give it a little nudge. However, romance is primarily the story of a developing romantic relationship, and not primarily written for titillation (no matter about those romances you check out from the library that fall open to the sex scenes and for some reason you don't want to *touch* them after that...). Porn (or, in the written world, erotica) is something created primarily for titillation.
I think it's more accurate to say that some romance themes reflect broader, usually-female emotional fantasies (such as a Cinderella story, the fulfillment of fertility and sexuality in marriage, etc.) than calling it "porn for women", which is derogatory toward women; but these are not the only themes, nor the only reason people read romances.
|