Look. I get that when people say “food porn” and “shoe porn” and, whatever… “pancake porn” (if the latter is an actual thing, please don’t tell me about it), that it’s intended by some as a favorable reference (“porn is awesome! So… this other thing is awesome too!”), and by others as some kind of subverting-the-dominant-paradigm schtick (“by calling these non-porn things ‘porn,’ we’re disrupting the reader’s/the listener’s expectations…”).
But when I see something I find visually interesting that is so clearly not porn labeled “porn,” my first reaction is “eyeroll,” followed by a sudden, complete loss of interest in the porn-labeled thing.
I know it’s trendy (and has been for years), and I know you are not responsible for the genesis of that trend, but really, do you have to do that? Because, sexual politics aside, it’s linguistically lame.
See also: calling things that aren’t pimping “pimping.” Whether you have favorable, unfavorable, or mixed feelings about how the sex industry works for persons who are actually pimped, saying you’re “pimping your ride” (or your computer, or home entertainment center) just makes me want to kick you in the balls or other parts as appropriate.
