One more time for the hard to convince and those young filmmakers who intend to do porn and call it erotica or who attempt to rationalize their porn by calling it erotica; most people equate erotica with porn. "91/2 weeks" is not porn and it is not erotica although it is erotic and sexual. "Debbie Does Dallas" is erotic porn termed erotica in the porn film industry in an attempt to soften the stigma attached to the term porn. You may loose the interest of a lot of creative actors if you just say erotica because, regardless of what you think, it means porn in the mainstream film industry. And yes, there is a difference between a dinner date and then casual sex and doing it on camera for money; the difference is exactly what makes erotic, explicit porn, porn and "91/2 weeks" sexual and sensual without being pornographic, that is, art.
For analogy, it is the same thing as a girl who strips before a group of slobbering drunks in a bar and a model who poses nude in the university art class. The difference is context. One context is vulgar, smutty, and base, crass, and harmfully (psychologically) exploitative the other artistic, uplifting, thoughtful, enlightening, and meaningful. It plays on the distinction between Agape and Eros; erotic love vs. pure, selfless love, if you believe they are the same, I feel sorry for you.
Within one context, your work may not be considered pornographic, even if the actors are fully nude and convincingly simulate sexual intercourse on camera; in another context, depending on the message you are delivering (or not), the same circumstances, the same scene, without a clearly defined context, could easily be pornographic and insulting, vulgar smut. Yes, It can be a fine line, but it is absolutely ignorant (ignore-ant) to maintain there is no real substantive difference. You know what it is when you see it. And you do know, regardless of your own rational intellectualization of the matter that says, "awe, it ain't so bad" Using the term "erotic" does not change anything.
Pornography is fundamentally exploitative both of the persons engaging in the public (exhibitionist) sex and of the persons watching the sex acts of others (voyeurism) -- It is not legitimate cinema. Having sex on camera for money is prostitution by definition. From the beginnings of Greek theatre, sex on stage was carnival stuff relegated to the back-street sideshows and not to the theatre of the people. Today, it ends up in "underground" theatres and not in the portfolios of real artists.
The "Masters and Johnson" tapes of lovers' engaging in sex are hardly pornographic because of the context in which they were made by the filmmakers, the purpose for which they were intended and the target viewing audience they were intended for (other researchers vs. other pornographically addicted smutaphobiles); Debbie Does Dallas" is porn because it says nothing beyond the sex act itself, it trivializes it and demeans it; it has no message we as humans do not already know; there is nothing new, no contribution made to art or the world -- it is, therefore, meaningless.
Also, It is a matter of well-documented, credible scientific research that people who seek out pornographic material on a regular basis have some serious problems in the upstairs department. It is safe to assume so also do those who enjoy making it. James Backie, John Wayne Gacey, Jeffery Dammer, and without exception some of the most notorious psychopaths of the modern world were all found to have one thing in common -- they loved pornographic, erotic material. Tell us once again how "...it ain't so bad."
Besides, it is a myth that porn movies make a lot of money; they do not; the biggest money makers are well made G rated films; pornographers try to mislead the naïve into believing there is money in porn to hide the fact that they are just bad, incompetent, inartistic filmmakers with no real talent -- amateurs with film and lights and equipment and no creative talent, so they do porn instead, it's the only thing they can do or will probably ever do, and they will leave the world relatively unchanged with their meaningless stuff. It is a pure waste of human effort.
It may be tempting, but the difference between a man and an animal is that a man can say no to temptation.... Sex is fine between two adult consenting souls. But not on camera for the public.
Although it is not in itself illegal for an adult to seek out or purchase or have or own "pornographic material" (as it is presently defined in the law), in most jurisdictions in the United States, and many other nations, if an adult were to give to, or provide to, or make available to a child sexually explicit, pornographic material, that adult probably would be arrested and spend some time jail for a range of civil and criminal wrongs ranging from contributing to the delinquency of a minor to lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor.
Any parent who might allow a child to live in an environment where sexually explicit magazines, video tapes, pictures, etc., (porno material) is readily available and in plain sight of the child's eyes on a regular basis would certainly be in trouble with the law of most states if such a situation were made known to the authorities. Child welfare officials of most states could, and probably would, intervene for the good of the child. If it can be shown there is a pattern of aberrant sexual behavior, decadence, or conduct within the household that would suggest a pattern of reckless disregard for the emotional or psychological well being of the child, including frequent exposure of the child to porno, parents would probably loose custody of the child. The state can, and does on occasion, literally remove the child from such an environment. When it comes to ensuring the safety of our children, when it comes to guarding them from abuse and neglect, the states and the federal authority in the United States have broad reaching power.
Children have a right to grow up in a safe environment, both physically and psychologically, and it is the responsibility of parents and adults and government to ensure that right is protected. They have a right to grow up in normal, progressive stages, to find out about sex at the right time developmentally and emotionally and in the right way through normal socialization within their own peer group. Frequent exposure at an early age to pornographic images (also violent images) interferes artificially with the normal learning and socialization process of child development and causes damage to the child both psychologically, emotionally, and physically; it causes them to grow up too fast and too soon and robs them of the right to be a child in their own time.
The "free speech" issue is not the absolute many think; one "...can not shout fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.."(Justice Holmes). One can not say or imply pornographic material is good for or harmless to the developing personalities of small children and then show them pictures of adults copulating. It is too much too soon. It is harmful to the impressionable, developing psyche of a child (see Freud
JackRooney@worldnet.att.net