I've always been of the opinion that erotica is porn with a face lift. Same smut, different name, and we all pretend there aren't any funnylooking stretched-out parts around the eyes.

I agree that there is exploitive explicit sex, and non-exploitive explicit sex, but I have yet to meet two people who agree on the criteria for differentiation, much less on names for each category.

Personally, when I write, my preference is for more tender sex. But I do realize that's a taste of mine and does not render other kinds of writing crap or anything.

Mulder and Krycek probably don't like each other a lot of the time, but they're awfully hot together.

Yes. They introduced me to slash fic. <Goes off to happy fantasy place where Mulder and Krycek lean over Calli's shoulder pointing out the really good M/K stories.> Ah, good times.

I've generally nodded at the definition that erotica is the sexy stuff I like and porn is that nasty stuff the other person likes. Which is not terribly helpful, and, to be honest, I've read some stuff that I'd call porn and that I really quite liked. I do think there's a line between the two, but it's hazy and seems to shift around a lot from person to person. For that matter, there's stuff in Harlequins that I'd call porn -- complete with lurve and flowers -- and some explicit NC-17 guy on guy fic that I'd call erotica. None of which is getting us anywhere, is it? Oh well. <Goes back to happy place with Mulder and Krycek. Remembers she's at work. Swears quietly and goes back to coding.>

As far as I'm concerned, if it's written to be arousing it's porn. But I don't attach a negative connotation to the word, particularly. ("Erotica" just sounds silly to me. "No no, it's not porn!! It's much classier!" Uh-huh.)

But Katie, women aren't supposed to enjoy porn, let alone produce it.

No one tell shrift, okay, because I'm rather attached to her porn.

Are you going to reply?

I'm debating that, connie. Last time I got flamed, it was on a story I'd co-written, and I and Raven had great fun replying, but this is a rather different case.

if only to establish which story she's talking about.

That would be my primary reason, I think. I'm curious.

...is this making any sense outside my own head?

I know what you mean, Fay.

And Dana and Consuela and Nutty and others. It's a problem, and one I usually overcome by reading things that are recced or writers I trust, and shutting the window if I don't like it.

Thanks for the imput, people. I'm going to sleep on it, and decide what to do in the morning.

I tend to prefer to call it "smut". I haven't figure out why I prefer that. Will have to ponder it.

In my tiny mind:
smut=bodice ripper;
erotica=literary porn, not always nice;
porn=unnaturally big breasted women or uncannily well-endowed, but otherwise boring-as-toast, men doing tacky and not at all arousing for the very tackiness things, all enhanced by an excess of gratuitious genitalia shots or description, topped with unbelieveable plot, settings,and characterization.

I seem to have become addicted to the Michael/Nikita thing (I wonder what made me think of that?). Is there more we could snark at, Dana?

But Katie, women aren't supposed to enjoy porn, let alone produce it.

I do have to admit that I spend some energy reminding myself of this in the Wider World. ("Oops, can't say that to the co-workers...")

Nothing terribly entertaining, although there's promise in the new story she's started. This makes her third in progress, and it's a co-written version of a really terrible movie that Roy Dupuis starred in. They've promised to take out the cannibalism and inbreeding, but leave in the sex.