 This suggests a third definition: pornography is sexually explicit material designed to produce sexual arousal in consumers that is bad in a certain way. This definition of pornography is value-laden because it is built into the definition that pornography is (somehow) bad; material that is not bad in the relevant way is not pornography. It might be that all and only sexually explicit material is bad in the relevant way (e.g., obscene), in which case “pornography” will refer to all and only the class of sexually explicit materials. But it may be that only some sexually explicit material has the (allegedly) objectionable property (e.g., subordinating women), in which case only that objectionable subset of sexually explicit material will count as pornography. And, of course, it is possible that no sexually explicit material is bad in the relevant way (e.g., harmful to women), in which case we would have an error theory about pornography: there would be no pornography, so defined, merely harmless, sexually explicit “erotica”.