Do you think calling it “ch*ld pornography” is highly inappropriate?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Politics
P.Error — 2 months ago(January 31, 2026 05:34 AM)
To classify a visual piece as “pornography” assigns a level of validation as an artistic craft. It specifically implies a
performance
as well as a distinct classification of a genre of media.
If someone has videos of children being violently tortured, we wouldn’t call these videos child avant-garde horror.
Because children cannot consent to appearing in a pornography, it should simply be referred to as video depictions of child sexual abuse.
This seems like something we would’ve done in the 50s, but not today.
Never lose your desire. -
Madotsuki_the_Dreamer — 2 months ago(January 31, 2026 05:37 AM)
To classify a visual piece as “pornography” assigns a level of validation of artistic merit to it.
No, it really doesn't. Pornography is the lowest form of art that there is. It usually has zero artistic value whatsoever. Films like
Score
and
Cafe Flesh
are very much the exception and not the rule. 99% of porn is **** like
Cum Slurping Felching Anal Whores
and
Your Mom's a Slut… She Takes It in the Butt!
, which have the same artistic value as someone farting into a microphone. -
P.Error — 2 months ago(January 31, 2026 05:57 AM)
Pornography is the lowest form of art that there is.
The lowest form of art is still art.
Cum Slurping Felching Anal Whores and Your Mom's a Slut… She Takes It in the Butt!,
Those examples you listed ironically, are the highest level of “art” in levels of pornography. They feature professional porn stars in fictionalised written stories on studio sets with some production value.
Do you know the kind of work involved in a commercial anal piece? Actresses have to get their starfish professionally bleached to lighten any pigment mismatch; they have to have beauticians make sure there’s not a pimple or a hair out of place on that special day. They may have too fast, so there’s no unfortunate accidents. They may have to do Hydrocolonic therapy before a scene.
You can’t just take any woman at Walmart riding a motor-cart and impromptu eat Cheerios out of her asshole while expecting it to be clean, pristine, and lavender-scented. To do anal in a commercial porn scene takes serious dedication. One zit on their butt cheek, and their career is over.
The point is, “pornography” implies a performance by performers. Even in homemade porn, they’re performing for the camera. The incentive for doing so is compensation of some kind, whether in the form of a salary or views. Children cannot perform.
But more than that, it implies an erotic piece of media. It’s like saying “Child Erotica.” There’s a subtle sexualisation in that word in and if itself. It reinforces that it’s a piece of sexual erotica.
Case in point, we don’t see a man “had sex” with a toddler. We would say a man sexually abused a toddler. So by the same standard, we shouldn’t say that children can be featured in a sex piece.
Never lose your desire.