June 10th, 2000 Intelligent Pornography| Heather Corinna In a new publication this week, whose subject matter is sex and sexuality, what I found most interesting was that in the editorial missive, commentary was made about having assured the media that it was NOT pornographic, but instead, intelligent. Suffice it to say, to assert that these two things are mutually exclusive is not only incorrect by simple definition, but it seems an assertion without deep thought or insight, in other words, without intelligence. I find that strange coming from a venue which does truly appear to be intelligent, and whose authors and producers I know ARE, in fact, highly intelligent. However, many times in the realm of sex, we find that common sense, simple logic and reason and the cerebral become convoluted, perplexing and nonsensical. That, I would assert, is because it is the very nature of sexuality to turn us on our proverbial ear. If it didn't, it wouldn't be anything to write home about. By it's root, pornography is simply: porne, “prostitute,” and graphein, “to write.” Pornography means, by literal definition, explicit description or exhibition of sexuality in literature, art, film or other media. It means material that induces desire in it's audience, intentionally or unintentionally. Explicit merely means expressly shown or stated, not nearly implied. Intelligent means having intelligence, cleverness or cerebral activity. There is nothing, neither in the definition of pornography nor of intelligence, to even hint that one excludes the other. Without the intellect, pornography could not exist. In addition, before we even go there, the roots of erotica mean exactly the same thing, which brings me to the crux of the matter. All of that definition, while brainy, is a bit beside the point. In our culture, the definition of pornography is not clear, very few understand it's real meaning, and it is instead a subjective term, used more often than not to define personal taste than actual material. One man's pornography is another's doctoral dissertation. So, for any of us to assert that by no means is something pornographic -- to anyone -- is truly to simply say that our own taste can dictate what is or is not by definition pornographic. And none of us have that power, thank goodness. If we did, we could then dictate what did and did not, could and could not arouse every other human being, unilaterally. Not only would that make sex terribly uninteresting, it would make it utterly inhuman. We have to accept, in a realm like sexuality, that is a burning hotseat for the mind, body and soul in tandem, an issue that is as highly subjective and sensitive as death -- and perhaps more so -- that what arouses and inspires one person can do nothing -- or offend, turn off or insult -- another. That is the nature of anything that is human and powerful, and not distinctly required for our individual survival, yet by which we are strongly driven. Much of this understanding, even when we have it, is often hidden when we attempt to sell sex to the masses, whatever our presentation. In fact, most times, it goes one way or another. We may vehemently call something intellectual or literate to attempt to denounce the possibility of arousal. In other words, by saying something is not pornography that is by it's nature explicitly sexual, the hidden message is that if you, the reader or viewer, are aroused by it, the pornographic nature lies with you. Plainly: you're the pervert, not us. On the other hand, when you see a product that unabashedly says that it is in fact, pornography, and does everything it can to throw every kind of explicit sex in your face with no attempt to appeal to your mind, and seems to do it's best not to appear at all intelligent, you can rest assured that there is no doubt plenty of intelligence at play. You just aren't supposed to see it, because the intelligence lies not in your sexual response to the material, but in your response to grab your wallet and hand over your cash. If you are of the mind that pornography as a whole is not intelligent, take a look at Larry Flynt's house, then take a look at yours. It isn't sheer dumb luck on his part, I assure you. Intelligent Pornography. Look at the words together. Say them a few times. Let them -- as strong words do -- work their magic. Some, like myself, who are comfortable with the concept and see no dichotomy there, will simply nod. It's a given. Others may scratch their heads, puzzled at what seems to be a cognitive dissonance. Others may scoff, and others still may laugh, either in good humor, or at what appears simply ridiculous. And thank goodness. I don't have a problem with attempting to sell intelligent pornography to the mainstream. In fact, as may be obvious by what I do with my life and work, I think it is laudable and worthy of praise: it isn't an easy job. It is sex work, akin to prostitution, table dancing, filming or starring in adult movies or writing smut for a cent a word. The only real difference, when it all boils down to it, is that those of us who do the seducing solely with our intellect are provided a great measure of extra safety and acceptance. If we think we are a different animal than any other consenting sex worker than surely we are not as intelligent as we think. At the same time, no work in sexuality is easy work, and solely because of the subject matter -- regardless of how well-crafted and finely honed our creative skills -- I cannot, in my lifetime, see it ever becoming easy work, or work that is normal and well-recieved by the masses. It is controversial, it is enlightening, it is compassionate (if we're doing it mindfully and with care), it is arousing, it is challenging as hell, but it is not easy. I cannot, in my lifetime, see it as being work which we can sell to everyone like food is sold, even though we need it and want it just as much. I do not think for a moment that I, or anyone else, could create a piece of work done addressing sex, sexuality or the erotic mind, soul or body, which absolutely no one would claim was pornographic. People have claimed the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is pornographic. Walt Whitman has been seen by some as a pervert. The Song of Songs is not in every version of the Bible. Things which are powerful are not easy to manage, and are impossible to classify simply, and sex and our intellect are both. When we attempt to water down, deny or vilify one or the other, we truly lose the power and the gifts of them both. To think that benefits anyone -- or worse still, to pretend it does, knowing otherwise -- strikes me as shortsighted and limited, which neither intelligence nor sexuality are unless we make them so. If something is pornographic, you will know: you will know because you will be dealing with a clear and explicit depiction of sexuality which will have an effect on you, feel it good or ill. If someone is intelligent, they know better than to try and dictate that subjective understanding to you. And if someone feels one of these things -- pornography or intelligence -- is divine and another reprehensible, then I would feel comfortable saying that either they understand neither of them very fully, or they aren't telling the truth. Pornography (whether you call it porn, smut, erotica or romance) and intelligence are inexorably linked, not unlike our bodies and our minds. Just as we can only deem something intelligent or not based on our own bell-curve, such is the case with pornography. When someone tells me something is not pornographic, what they are saying is that IF I find arousal in it, it is only I who am responsible for that arousal, and not them. If someone tells me something is intelligent and I find it not to be, it is giving a clear message that I am clearly not intelligent enough to grasp how very intelligent it is. The irony in either case is that whether someone does or does not tell me something is pornographic or intelligent, whether I find it so or not so lies only with me. And thank goodness. © 2000 Heather Corinna. All rights reserved. wenches of yesteryear | home