Devil's Advocate: Should Smut Be Considered Pornography?

NO: Saffron Rowell

You’ve all read the title. Like every good porno, we’re throwing foreplay out the window. Let’s skip to the good bit.

First off, smut has a wider plot. It has character development, a narrative arc separate from the non-sexual content of the novel. How would we know that the Dark Prince has overcome his daddy issues, and learned that mafioso violence does not qualify as a love language, if we don't see him, tenderly but with inhuman strength, take Y/N from behind? In this way, smut reflects more accurately sex’s position in life: as part of it but not the entirety. Though the point is conceded that perhaps f***ing in the Royal Suite of a gothic, candle-lit, castle is not directly transferable to real life. For most of us, at least.

Porn does not have a wider plot — or any sort of plot really, unless we take ‘climax’ to encompass both of its meanings. Rather, if the introduction takes longer than one minute and thirty seconds, most of its viewers are skipping the video (or so I’ve heard). Where smut features intricately crafted characters bearing their intense and convoluted trauma to the reader’s discretion, porn exclusively features the misadventures of Brad, hunky copy-machine-fixer cum delivery boy cum farmhand cum pool boy cum landscaper, and Cherry, ditsy yet charming waitress cum step-sister cum boss cum college student in desperate need of extra credit.

This versatility exists for one simple reason — we do not care about Brad, or Cherry, or their extensive resumes, rivalling only the Chuckle Brothers and Kirk from Gilmore Girls. How do they end up in these situations? Don’t care. Why do they switch jobs so frequently? Don’t care. Is it because they show a flagrant disregard for workplace sexual misconduct policy? Most likely. Still don't care. 

In contrast, there’s also a reason why the majority of smut and literature featuring smut has fan-fiction, or is fan-fiction, or is fan-fiction of fan-fiction — fan-fan-fiction-fiction if you will — or is published literature, which was originally fan-fiction, that has now, ironically, generated its own fan-fiction, in a cannibalistic self-perpetuating cycle — fan-fan-(fan)-fiction-fiction-fiction. It’s because people care about the characters in smut. Sure, it helps that The Dark Prince has a six-pack, needs tailor-made XXL condoms, and has the stamina of an elephant on ketamine, but that’s not all there is to him. It’s also not enough to make people care. And if the sheer quantity of fan-fan-(fan)-fiction-fiction-fiction is anything to go by, they sure do. 

Where smut features as one small, indulgent, latex-wrapped cog in a wider literary machine, the sole purpose of porn is sexual gratification. No matter how many of Brad’s escapades you may have watched, you’re not recommending the series to anyone, and you’re definitely not filming an at-home interpretation of his back story and inner life. At least, I sincerely hope not.

Porn is not crafted, whereas smut is. It is isolated, whereas smut is not. There is no character development, which is seminal to the allure of smut. And so we have it — smut is not pornography. We’re skipping aftercare today as well, aside from one disclaimer. To any and all prospective employers, I did not choose to write this. 

YES: Alex McQuibban

I am by no means an expert when it comes to smut nor pornography — shocker! But someone has to write the D.A., and as someone who grew up on the Tumblr era internet, and had more than a few AO3-frequenting friends — if you know, you know — I believe that I am qualified to defend what should be an absolutely obvious statement: smut is (a form of) pornography. 

So, how does one go about determining whether or not smut is pornography? Lucky for me, this is a philosophical question, so I can finally put my many degrees to good use. Unfortunately, it’s rather difficult to list out the exact necessary and sufficient conditions a piece of media needs to comply with to qualify as pornography. US Supreme Court Justice once famously shared his foolproof diagnostic test to determine whether something counted as (hard-core) pornography: “I know it when I see it.” That being said, a quick Google search gives the following definition: “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement” — though I should warn any curious readers who want to replicate my results to search “definition of pornography” and not just “porn.” So that settles it, right? Given that smut is literature which is specifically intended to include explicit description of sexual themes and activity for the reader’s ‘pleasure,’ rather than for educational purposes, say, then smut is pornography. 

But maybe this judgement is a little hasty, I hear you say, as you quickly zip up your trousers and close your laptop screen. After all, your favourite smutty fan-fic isn’t porn — not real porn. Your favourite smutty fan-fic is a work of art; it’s so much more than just sex; it’s got proper dialogue; and, most importantly, it’s all just a bunch of words and no one gets hurt or dehumanised — at least not for real. 

But this defence only really amounts to saying that it’s porn you like and that it might be more ethical, denying the fact that written pornography can often play on the same dangerous tropes that the rest of the pornographic industry does. Now, don’t get me wrong, the very presence of sexual themes or even description of sexual activity does not make smut porn. But the same is true of visual media: your favourite film that just happens to have a sex scene at the end would likely not fall under the same category as your favourite video that just happens to have a casual pizza delivery at the beginning. We’ve heard it all before, whether you claim to read or watch it “only for the plot,” you cannot deny that smut and videographic porn are media whose primary aim is to convey sexual content for sexual content’s sake. 

There is a deeper insight behind all of this, however — that we often get distracted by the platonic ideals of concepts which we make up in our heads, ones that create all sorts of illusory distinctions which are completely dependent on the societies we happen to live in. Magazines were once all the rage, and now the same can be said of videos; but if we all went blind, we’d likely be doing it all in audio format. The more important distinction than whether or not certain media matches our pre-conceived notions of pornography, is whether or not that media — especially in trying to play to our more base instincts — harms anyone in the process. 

In any case, if you’re ever worried that it might, then try having real (consensual) sex for a change. Now that is something that won’t go out of style anytime soon.

Illustration from Wikimedia Commons