Stop the presses! Scientist says "erotica has its place"

File this under “No Duh!” Reporter interviews scientist from the Kinsey Institute, gets a story out of it that says there’s nothing inherently wrong with erotica.

Give the newspaper credit—because in Salt Lake, otherwise known as Mormon Central, printing anything even debatably pro- free sexual expression takes courage. But I couldn’t help reading this article with a more than slightly jaundiced eye. “Nothing wrong with erotica!” it proclaims, citing cave art and the Kama Sutra, among other things.

I’m a card-carrying erotic writer, myself. Obviously, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with erotica. “Every man thinks he’s righteous,” as the saying goes; if I didn’t approve, I wouldn’t create the stuff, nor consume it.

But, seriously. This merits column inches in a major metropolitan daily? And on a rather more serious note—there is a difference between erotica and pornography, which this reporter apparently does not grasp.

The article is headed “Kinsey scientist says erotica has its place,” and the first line references “erotic imagery.” But the word “erotica” appears only once in the brief story, as opposed to eight appearances of “porn” or “pornography,” with no clear delineation between the two—it actually ends with a defense of porn as “...a more innocent outlet than adultery.” No mention at all of erotica’s place in a healthy psyche or sex life!

Sigh. Erotica does, indeed, have its place. So does porn. I’d argue that they’re different places, but...baby steps, right?