Pornography, porno, porn: thoughts on a weedy field

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the state of ‘pornography, porno, porn’ studies grounded on a critique of my own anthology and other significant texts. It notes the (over)abundance of work on gay pornography versus the surprising paucity on heterosexual pornographies; the under-representation of soft core; the near non-existence of an ‘archive’; and the need for more original single-authored books. Finally, the article makes a plea that criticizes the very title of this journal in the casual, too-comfortable use of the terms ‘porno’ and now ‘porn’ that risk aligning the academic field too closely with the industry, thus eliding critical distance and suggesting that the field is automatically ‘pro-porn,’ which it should not be.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 72 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.