@foxhound_fox said:
@drunk_pi said:
Is penetration shown? Because if it is, then it's a glorified porno with a plot.
If not, then imo, it's one of those edgy softcore movies.
Softcore porn doesn't show penetration.
The true definition of pornography is the act of sexual intercourse is ACTUALLY taking place (whether shown or not). If this film does not have any real sex in it, then it's not porn.
I disagree. I mean, "food porn" is a thing, and it's not like bacon is sticking its dick into the hot dogs. Movies like Saw and Hostel get labelled as "torture porn" even though no one is actually having sex.
The point is that "porn" is generally just appealing to base desires, like "me hungry, me need to eat" or "me angry, me need to kill" or "me horny, me need to ****." It's just wank material. Now, that's not to say that being wank-worthy automatically makes something porn. After all, I've certainly gotten physical with myself after watching Monster's Ball or Mulholland Dr. But with porn, being wankworthy is sort of the primary point of the thing. Like, sure you can wank to Mulholland Dr, but that's CLEARLY not the primary point of the movie. There's actually a lot of interesting intellectual and aesthetic stuff in there. It kind of sucks as a porno, because only 3 minutes out of the entire running time are actually something you could wank to. The entire rest of the movie, you're clearly supposed to be THINKING. And by contrast, lots of B movies are clearly (soft core) porn even though no one actually has sex. Sure, no one has sex, but the art direction and the cinematography and the writing are so shitty that it's clear that the whole point was just to give an excuse to get women naked so that viewers could beat off to that.
Log in to comment