I thought the legal definition of porn was "I know it when I see it."

That's what I thought!

I went on a fan buying spree today, and my apartment is downright comfortable again.

I like porn. I watch plenty of it, and being a man I respond better to watching than I do reading, though reading can be plenty hot (both Erica Jong and Anais Nin have written multiple passages that REALLY did it for me). I understand and respect pretty much all positions on pro/anti-porn spectrum. I'm somewhere in the middle, near the "Yay porn, boo industry" area.

My tastes in porn, as in sex, are pretty vanilla, in that there's no particular kink I seek out or that does it for me. So as for what kind of porn I watch or don't watch, as long as it doesn't make me uncomfortable, and she doesn't look uncomfortable, I'm good. I tend to prefer "homemade" porn (don't you believe it), that doesn't involve hidden cameras, just because that seems to be the kind of porn that is most likely to feature normal looking women.

Actually, that can be one of my biggest problems when looking for good porn to watch -- finding porn featuring normal looking women. Most mainstream porn features women who are way too skinny/skanky, and porn featuring "larger women" seems to feature primarily women who are well outside of my "attractive zone." And considering that I have a pretty broad "attractive zone", that's saying something. It's very difficult sometimes to find porn featuring women in the middle, which would/does appeal to me greatly.

Actually, isn't the legal definition of pornography "an appeal to prurient interest" that lacks any other redeeming feature?

I bet my prurient interests are quite different from most congressmen.

My (flippant) bitch about het porn is that nobody seems to really be enjoying the sex.

This. The most likely feature of porn I would watch is that the woman actually looks like she's enjoying herself.

I thought the legal definition of porn was "I know it when I see it."

Wasn't that Jesse Helms on obscenity in art, WRT to the federal funding thereof, specifically the work of Robert Mapplethorpe?

eta and I'm wrong, it was porn, and not Jesse Helms, and in the 60s. [link]

Lack of a female orgasm is something lacking in most mainstream pron. At least, the kind that I have experience with. Both pron and orgasm.

Lack of a female orgasm is something lacking in most mainstream pron.

Yeah. What's up with that?

the woman actually looks like she's enjoying herself.

This! And I know most het porn is made for the male viewer, but I'd rather not have the woman pouting at the camera, ie, guy watching.

It's really odd, the differences between het and gay porn. Removing the women (like me) who like watching two guys together, are the men who watch gay porn looking for something different than the men watching het porn? There doesn't seem to be as much pandering to the camera in gay stuff.

Wasn't that Jesse Helms on obscenity in art, WRT to the federal funding thereof, specifically the work of Robert Mapplethorpe?

Yes.

And I think I hate people who only want "art" that doesn't offend or upset them in any way, almost as much as I hate people who don't understand that science is a process, and not a collection of facts.

the woman actually looks like she's enjoying herself.

and doesn't sound like a kitten being strangled.

I like Aims's definition of erotica vs porn.

I'm off to bed at 9.15 because I've had enough of today. Most recent attempt to come off anti-depressants is making me cranky (and cry in public a lot).