I want to use an old meme to talk about drawing a line on what do you consider porn / coomer content
View attachment 2159
Idea for this came about when I was on my "porn-free streak" earlier this year. While I was successful in avoiding porn in the form of videos and images, I started to think about whether written stuff could be considered "coomer content". I'm talking about roleplaying and written erotica.
Once that thought came up, the floodgates were open.
How about ASMR?
How about softcore photo sessions?
Should I text her?
And so on and so on. I'm curious to hear your opinions. Where do you draw the line on what is coomer material and what isn't?
I think it really depends on a number of factors and can vary depending on what factor a person finds the most important. I'll try to explain with which broad subjects I've seen people particularly fixate on:
A feminist would likely say that the line of porn is drawn depending on the efficacy of the production. To her the focus should be on if the subject is being exploited by the production and if so that makes it immoral. By her definition it might be okay to even consume nude photographics of one's girlfriend if they were consensual. On the extreme end however she could label a Dan Schneider Nickelodeon production as unethical and pornographic due to the depiction of Ariana Grande's feet as so hypersexualized by the director.
A more conservative person might say it depends on the intent of the art. At the end of the day people are attracted to many things that aren't sexual by default. Is an exposed woman's breast pornography or can it just be a symbol of motherhood? Many neo-classical art pieces feature exposed breasts and thighs and most people wouldn't consider those works to be pornographic. Taken to the extreme on this stance one could say that Alan Moore's Lost Girls isn't porn since it has a deeper artistic message to the sex depicted.
At the end of the day I would say a person can only really draw the line where one wants. As an artist I can say the focus points of the art is what determines the pornographic nature of the art.
As an anecdote: I work with kids and often teach teenage girls how to draw. There are certain realities I've seen people (both clients and coworkers) forget in these experiences. Firstly, women have breasts; should be obvious but people panic at this mere concept regardless of the context because the mere ability to draw anatomically correct breasts (which are always less sexual than whatever a person tries to do beforehand) is a pandora's box and an early anatomical lesson in drawing a person. Second, people have nipples; while I personally omit nipples from the art I do for my clients the fact remains that the children's art book I use (Fun with a Pencil by Andrew Loomis) has nipples and this anatomical fact has lead to a coworker of mine having a meltdown because the children's art book I lent my client had nipples. Finally, in relevance to the discussion, you can't learn to draw fabric first: I personally teach barbie doll anatomy to my clients first and move to fabric after. Little girls who have played with paper dolls are usually naturals to fashion design and pick it up fast but the fact remains that you can't draw clothes on a person without being able to draw a person first (For those interested I base this lesson off Figure Drawing for All It's Worth by Andrew Loomis though I don't own a physical copy of that book and don't actually remember if it's kid appropriate so I'm not sure I'd lend it).
These experiences have personally lead me to the following conclusions:
The presence of a woman in art or photography isn't porn and to even imply that it is I think it inherently damaging to the female psyche. Little girls want to draw themselves and their mothers and they should be able to with traditional skills and not be told their presence in the drawing makes it sexual.
The presence of breasts, nipples and nudity is towing the line but not inherently sexual. If you look at Saturn Eating His Own Son and get turned on that says a lot more about you and your mind than it does if Goya was drawing porn on his walls.
Bottom line as far as child appropriate material is concerned: If you could see it in a Disney movie then it's not porn and safe to show a child.
As far as what's okay to jerk it to if you're trying to go porn free: If you can post it on a 4chan blue board I think you're good at least image wise. Lit-erotica is porn
(and your girlfriend is consuming a lot) but it is the most ethical porn so if you care about ethics go ham.
