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.

If there are positive emotions (doesn't need to be love/like is ok) it's erotica. Just nasty manipulative sex is porn.

Yes, I do think this is ridiculous. There don't have to be positive emotions going on, either love or like - but then, angsty conflicted angry push-pull of unwilling desire sex pretty much delivers a round house kick to my kink buttons and fuses them, so I would say that. Er.

It's about language, isn't it? 'Cause I prefer the word 'porn' to smut or erotica, much as I generally prefer to use the word 'cock' rather than 'manhood' or 'sex' etc etc.

I think maybe all I mean is - if it's badly written, it's (with the negative connotation) just porn. If it's well written, it's not. Whether teh sex is a positive or a negative expression of the characters' emotions or desires is neither here nor there in terms of whether it pings me as 'just' porn.

....but in practical terms I do generally just use 'porn' to mean stories in which people's rude bits get some quality time with bare skin.

They've promised to take out the cannibalism and inbreeding, but leave in the sex.

Well, at least they have standards.

I'm saving that reply up for when I'm annoyed at being interrupted by "What are you writing?" "Porn." Though normally I wimp and say "My journal." Journal's are very respectable in the Mormon worldview.