By saying, “But pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic, for it represents the suppression of true feeling. Pornography emphasizes sensation without feeling”, Lorde (1989) establishes a clear boundary between pornography and erotics. What makes erotics so significant, so different, so acute, regardless of gender or sex, is the pleasure the subjects experience or, oftentimes, conjure up. This is a similar parallel with objectification and subjectification where the former is passive and the latter is active. However, I have been a little suspicious of such ‘objectification’ in pornography where sex pleasure may not be realized in the action but by exhibiting the action in absolute details by the actors whereas for (some) audience, their enjoyment may be incurred simply by watching such actions. Surely, their enjoyment could be related to sex, or other, such as s&m ones, etc. But one thing seems clear to: such incitements may vary among individuals and therefore become individualized. And even this individualization may not be formed overnight and keep evolving over time. An once pornographic entity may be eroticized some other time. This comes back to Chong’s comment on the problems for Critical Theory has been long critiqued. That is, general claims are made to be inclusive of all subjects from one single or a limited number of so-called perspectives only because they are interested to the author.