| > It's not porn if it's text. Actual English usage rather emphatically disagrees with you. [0] > There's a double standard in English, where pornographic books can't actually be porn because women don't consume porn. No, there’s not. But “romance novels” aren't that, though arguably an adjacent category (whereas “erotic fiction” is an overlapping, but not identical, category to “pornographic fiction”.) But English does not hold that what woman consume is not porn (and, in fact, you’ll find extensive English language studies of how women consume what is uncontroversially porn.) > The other interesting aspects of that lesson were that I wouldn't really have expected a module in a class formally offered through a Chinese university to focus on this topic, and that -- in the textbook's opinion -- the correct English vocabulary should have been "blue movie", "blue picture", "blue magazine", and "blue book". “blue movie” is correct, if somewhat dated; the rest are, at best, never as widely used. [0] e.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pornographic_novels |
You can find extensive English-language studies of many phenomena that people prefer to pretend never happen. That doesn't mean the pretense isn't there.
> “blue movie” is correct, if somewhat dated; the rest are, at best, never as widely used.
As best I could tell, the "blue" terminology is correct Indian English; I would have no qualms about labeling it incorrect American English. No one I've mentioned this to has ever even heard of the term.
> Actual English usage rather emphatically disagrees with you. [0]
This would be a more convincing rebuttal if the page was willing to describe more than 12 books as "pornographic novels".