ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
I have seen various prominent news websites use "
audio erotica" and "
audio porn" interchangeably in the same article to describe sex sounds. The ones that use "audio erotica", use it in the headline, and then use "audio porn" in the article. To me, this suggests that people just want to shy away from the word "porn" because of its controversial/taboo connotation. It wouldn't surprise me if they get more traffic for avoiding the word "porn" in the headline.
I've never paid any attention to how mass media articles portray porn/erotica/whatever. A lot of what mainstream
media 'journalism' does, and has always done (but now more than ever), is to form certain narratives in the minds
of media consumers, for insidious and even nefarious reasons.
For example, hardcore pornography in the UK was only legalised in the year 2000. It would've been completely
pointless and stupid to continue criminalising it, since anyone with an internet connection could access it.
However, prior to this, hardcore porn, indeed
any kind of porn, was heavily demonised by the UK mass media,
despite the fact that some UK tabloid newspapers regularly had bare-breasted women inside their pages. A man would've
even been considered to be 'dirty' if he was the sort who liked to buy softcore porn magazines, i.e. what they call here in
the UK, "top shelf magazines".
But with the advent of social media, it's plainly obvious that, this form of censorship was contrary to human
nature - many women are natural exhibitionists. Oh, I'm sure many bourgeois feminists would disagree with that,
but check out the plethora of Instagram pages, where countless scantily-clad women (especially celebrities),
in bikinis or lingerie, are quite happy showing off their bodies. There's nothing wrong with this, BTW.
But can you imagine if I had a time machine, and took a trip back to, say, 1986, and told people about
semi-naked women on something called 'social media'? Nobody would believe me.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
I also believe that the reason most articles about audio porn focus overwhelmingly on scripted/performed content, is because it's the only kind of audio porn that is profitable to a business, and that in turn, makes it more worthy of mainstream media's attention, like Forbes. There are various companies, podcasts and subscription services that charge monthly for sexy stories. The kind of audio porn we like, ie sex sounds of every day people having sex, is much harder to monetize, if it's possible at all. Audio porn companies that created scripted stories own the content they create, there is an economy behind it.
There isn't one for real sex sounds.
The subject of monetizing the sort of content we have on this forum is way more taboo. I believe a German
magazine once did a story about this website not long after it first appeared - yeppie can tell you more
about this. Why is this website so controversial? Well, obviously, we are recording people having sex without
their knowledge. So, inevitably, someone will start a diatribe about how we are 'violating the privacy' of these
people. But, funnily enough, these accusations originate from the clueless sort who carry smartphones 24/7,
and naively assume that no way is the $tate monitoring their location and online/offline activities, because
they're not terrorists or criminals.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I also said that audio-porn/erotica, sex sounds, if you prefer, is a sub-genre of amateur porn too.
When two regular people film themselves having sex and share the video online, it's still porn.
Just because it wasn't professionally made doesn't make it not so.
I don't disagree with this.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
Couples doing the same, just with sound, therefore also qualifies as porn.
Not necessarily. Because audio recordings, by themselves, are not
visual (like video and images), and therefore
do not fall completely fall under the definition of 'pornography'....unless they are also accompanied by a story,
which involves text, which is a visual thing.
Perhaps the closest thing we have to this on this forum, is when a member uploads a recording of a session they
had with their wife/girlfriend/whatever, and provides a description of what exactly they were doing (if it isn't obvious!
).
But if someone uploads a sound file of a couple having sex in a car, for example, then there really isn't
anything in that post that falls under the definition of 'pornography', is there? I'll explain more below.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
I think it's fair to say that a lot of people here, if not most or all, get off listening to sex sounds. It serves as their pornography. I got into it first because it's hot, and it happens to be a kink that turns me on. But also because it diversifies my pornography consumption, since it's of a very different variety. It's not visual.
You seem to believe that all porn has a fictitious performative element to it that is designed for an audience. Not necessarily. Celebrities, who've made sex tapes, did not do it for an audience. They did it for themselves. Their recordings are still porn.
Not at all.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
As I said, I read a lot of informative articles on voyeurism. A few of them have argued that
technically even watching porn is voyeurism, because although the performers consented to being recorded and their videos being released publicly, they do not know that you are watching them or when you're watching them.
Yes, I suppose it is.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
It could also be argued that those who have never recorded their loud neighbors having sex, but
have listened to recordings shared by other people, are engaging in second hand voyeurism,
Well, no, because of the absence of the element of observation. Although, I must confess, I have used
the term 'voyeuristic' in one of my posts before, but only due to a lack of an alternative, more suitable,
adjective.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
or auralism if you prefer.
A word I'm more OK with, because it explicitly means 'arousal by sound'.
ShabbyKayak wrote: 05 Aug 2021 19:21
Am I going to get in trouble for using the term audio porn to describe sex sounds? I don't want to offend anyone, but I'd like to keep using it, and hopefully have discussions about it with others, like I am with you, because again, this fascinates me.
Nobody can stop you using whatever term you wish. Most members probably don't care.
But allow me to give you two reasons why I have a problem with the term 'audio porn'.
1. Consider the sort of sounds I currently upload to the forum - outdoor sex sounds. All I've done
is captured audio recordings of couples having inside sex inside cars by hiding a device at some
location. I haven't '
created' anything at all. It's not something I can copyright, like an action movie.
I've just pressed an on/off button on a recording device, that's all. Just because the couple in the
audio recording are having sex, does not qualify it as being 'pornographic'.
2. Casually calling what I (and others) upload to the forum 'audio porn', ignores the time, effort, risks
and costs involved in acquiring these sounds. You've only just become a member, but if or when you start
providing sounds for the forum - and I hope you do - you'll understand what I mean.
Obtaining real life sex sounds isn't as easy as some may think. Almost anyone can sit at home, trawl the web,
and extract an audio file from a porn video, and upload it on to a website. Fine, call that 'audio porn',
if you wish. But that level of 'effort' will never compare, or come anywhere close, to the level of
commitment of those forum members who provide sounds - real sounds - on a regular basis.
This leads me to believe that the community is much smaller than I imagined. Maybe in the hundreds?