Food porn, sneaker porn, car porn, design porn, penmanship porn, power washing porn, even, yes, "things cut in half" porn: what exactly is going on with the way we use the word "porn" today? According to philosophers C. Thi Nguyen and Bekka Williams, this new, generic sense of "porn" is applicable when we use images or other media for "immediate gratification" while "avoiding the complexities" of the actual thing. But are they right? Is "food porn" really used for immediate gratification, or does porn--in any of its forms--stimulate desire, rather than gratify it? Are things like food and car porn really harmless, as the authors claim? And what is the relationship between this new sense of "porn" and traditional, sexual pornography? We're deep into our porn bag on this one.

And before that: self-help guru Charlamagne tha God jumped the shark on a recent IG inspo post, so naturally we're breaking that down.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

C. Thi Nguyen and Bekka Williams: Why We Call Things 'Porn'

Maggie Jones: What Teenagers are Learning from Online Porn

Charlamagne's Ridiculous IG post