My vague impression is that Fifty Shades of Grey is popular beyond what you would expect just given a big marketing push by a major publisher.
It’s the first BDSM soft porn book that was given a big marketing push by a major publisher. That made it “OK to read” for a large number of people who are interested in what they think of as “kinky sex” but do not allow themselves to actually go and read obvious porn.
That made it “OK to read” for a large number of people who are interested in what they think of as “kinky sex” but do not allow themselves to actually go and read obvious porn.
And what do you think the plain meaning of the words is? “Soft core pornography” is generally understood to refer to video or photographs of people who are naked but not having sex (and that’s not the “plain meaning” of the words, but common idiom). My understanding is that the Fifty Shades of Grey book does not contain any photographs, and the people in the book do in fact have sex.
Some people are easily sexually aroused by pictures, some by words. Stereotypes say that men usually prefer pictures, and women prefer words. Also, if the product is too obviously designed for the purpose of sexual arousal, that is considered low status.
So, the trick is to create a book sexually arousing enough that it will increase sales, but not too much so that it would reduce the status of customers; we need some plausible deniability that the customers are buying a piece of art. Twilight plays it safe, Fifty Shades of Grey tries to push it as far as possible.
So, the trick is to create a book sexually arousing enough that it will increase sales, but not too much so that it would reduce the status of customers; we need some plausible deniability that the customers are buying a piece of art.
Porn is not limited to just images, of course. There is a lot of porn in the form of text.
The location of the boundary between soft and hard porn is an interesting question which probably does not have a single “correct” answer. I tend to think of hard porn as being interested exclusively in clinical detail and specific particulars while having little pretensions to being an art form. Soft porn is less single-minded and, um, less hard-edged.
I don’t think that “just naked” vs “having sex” is a deciding factor.
My vague impression is that Fifty Shades of Grey is popular beyond what you would expect just given a big marketing push by a major publisher.
It’s the first BDSM soft porn book that was given a big marketing push by a major publisher. That made it “OK to read” for a large number of people who are interested in what they think of as “kinky sex” but do not allow themselves to actually go and read obvious porn.
Another display of Asch’s conformity at work?
What do you mean by “soft porn book”?
Um. Nothing special, just plain meaning of the words. What are you asking about?
And what do you think the plain meaning of the words is? “Soft core pornography” is generally understood to refer to video or photographs of people who are naked but not having sex (and that’s not the “plain meaning” of the words, but common idiom). My understanding is that the Fifty Shades of Grey book does not contain any photographs, and the people in the book do in fact have sex.
Some people are easily sexually aroused by pictures, some by words. Stereotypes say that men usually prefer pictures, and women prefer words. Also, if the product is too obviously designed for the purpose of sexual arousal, that is considered low status.
So, the trick is to create a book sexually arousing enough that it will increase sales, but not too much so that it would reduce the status of customers; we need some plausible deniability that the customers are buying a piece of art. Twilight plays it safe, Fifty Shades of Grey tries to push it as far as possible.
Indeed they basically made up the term “Erotic Romance novel” to game this.
Porn is not limited to just images, of course. There is a lot of porn in the form of text.
The location of the boundary between soft and hard porn is an interesting question which probably does not have a single “correct” answer. I tend to think of hard porn as being interested exclusively in clinical detail and specific particulars while having little pretensions to being an art form. Soft porn is less single-minded and, um, less hard-edged.
I don’t think that “just naked” vs “having sex” is a deciding factor.