 But the badness of pornography need not reside in obscenity. Pornography might be defined, not as sexually explicit material that is obscene, but as sexually explicit material that harms women. Thus, many contemporary feminist definitions define “pornography” as material (pictures and/or words) that depicts women’s subordination in such a way as to endorse, encourage or eroticize it (Longino 1980; MacKinnon 1987). This definition of pornography leaves it open in principle that there might be sexually explicit material that is not pornography: sexually explicit material that does not depict women’s subordination, or that depicts but does not endorse it, will count as harmless “erotica.” Determining whether a given film or image functions to endorse oppressive social hierarchies is complex and context-sensitive; it depends not simply on the intrinsic content of the film or image, or on the intentions of its creators, but also on how it is interpreted or used on a particular occasion (McGowan 2019, Ch. 6). The very same material (e.g., a graphic documentary film about the sex trade) could count as pornographic in one context (e.g., if used for masturbation) but not in another (e.g., when shown in gender studies class). Likewise, although it may depict sexual relations of domination and subordination, BDSM material may not function to endorse oppressive sexual hierarchies on many or most occasions of use. If so, it would not be pornographic in this current value-laden sense, but rather harmless “erotica”.