{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,7]],"date-time":"2026-02-07T20:43:44Z","timestamp":1770497024534,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Queensland University of Technology","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,9]],"date-time":"2024-08-09T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1723161600000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["M\/C J"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction\nIn recent years, the word \u201cporn\u201d has been increasingly used as a kind of descriptive suffix in aesthetic categories like \u201cfood porn\u201d, \u201cnature porn,\u201d \u201ctrauma porn\u201d, and \u201cinspiration porn\u201d. Some scholars in Porn Studies have commented on the phenomenon as a notable expansion of the concept of porn, noting the striking fact that almost none of the porn-suffix categories contain representations of sex. Thus, an obvious puzzle emerges: what is it exactly that makes food porn, nature porn, or trauma porn pornographic?\nWhile a number of scholarly publications have examined the sociocultural implications of some of these categories, such as the examinations of food porn within food studies (see Krogager and Leer), of inspiration porn within disability studies (see Grue), and torture porn within film studies (see Lockwood), few have examined the proliferation of such porn-suffix categories as a sociocultural phenomenon in itself (see, for example, Hester; Nguyen and Williams). One notable exception, Helen Hester\u2019s book Beyond Explicit: Pornography and the Displacement of Sex (2014), examines categories like war porn and misery porn, which are primarily used as negative evaluative judgments that insinuate the moral depravity of the aesthetic objects under consideration (not unlike trauma porn, poverty porn, and disaster porn), usually highlighting the ways that human suffering is sensationalized for entertainment.\nWhile this kind of category \u2013 what I call categories of moral critique \u2013 encapsulates a major component of the porn suffix phenomenon, this article will focus on a different side of the phenomenon: categories like food porn, travel porn, architecture porn, and nature porn. Unlike trauma porn and poverty porn, these categories \u2013 what I call categories of aesthetic indulgence \u2013 do not imply a negative moral judgment upon the aesthetic objects under consideration, but instead refer to a viewer\u2019s indulgence in enticing or attractive images of objects. Such categories proliferate on social media platforms through hashtags (#foodporn, #architectureporn) and subreddits (\/r\/natureporn). What has come to be known as Reddit\u2019s \u201cSFW Porn Network\u201d, in fact, includes 98 such categories, each devoid of depictions of sexuality or sexual activity \u2013 from the fairly self-explanatory \u201carchitecture porn\u201d and \u201cspace porn\u201d to the more nebulous \u201chuman porn\u201d and \u201cthings-cut-in-half porn\u201d. Such categories take on a valence qualitatively distinct from categories of moral critique, and thus imply a different social attitude toward porn. It is the aim of this article to examine what the proliferation of such categories reveals about our shifting attitude toward porn, entertainment, and gratification.\nCentral to my investigation will be the examination of the role that aesthetic judgment plays in the formation of these categories and, by extension, porn itself. Within the principles of aesthetic theory, labelling an image, film, or novel as \u201cpornography\u201d is not a value-neutral category attribution \u2013 like identifying a four-legged animal as a \u201ccat\u201d \u2013 but an aesthetic judgment involving the aesthetic faculties, similar to judging a painting beautiful. In a similar way, labelling an image as \u201cfood porn\u201d or \u201cnature porn\u201d is a judgment of the aesthetic qualities of that particular image. By drawing on the aesthetic theory of Immanuel Kant and Frank Sibley, I show how the casual adoption of \u201cporn\u201d as a metaphor to name these image-sharing communities in fact acknowledges and reflects on the aesthetic foundations of porn itself. Specifically, the rapid emergence of aesthetic categories like food porn and nature porn reflects upon \u201cporn\u201d as a transparently value-laden concept that, like beauty, is devoid of identifiable criteria, a condition best exemplified by Justice Potter Stewart's well-known declaration about obscenity: \u201cI know it when I see it\u201d. Ultimately, I will argue, the porn suffix reveals how \u201cporn\u201d has come to signify the role that mere aesthetic feeling, rather than logic or reason, plays in the creation of some of our most politically charged concepts.\u00a0\nTwo Forms of \u201c-Porn\u201d\nIn the introduction, I suggested that there are two primary (but not exclusive) ways in which the porn suffix has been used: categories of moral critique and categories of aesthetic indulgence. Categories of moral critique, such as trauma porn and poverty porn, apply a negative moral judgment to the aesthetic object labelled as such. Investigating similar categories in their book Beyond Criteria, Hester has argued that it is the socially determined associations with pornography \u2013 \u201cprurience\u201d, \u201cthe real\u201d, \u201cauthenticity\u201d, \u201cintensity\u201d, and \u201ctransgression\u201d \u2013, not the genre-defining element of sexually explicit representation, that undergirds the pornographic nature of such categories (14-16).\nBut categories of aesthetic indulgence like food porn, travel porn, architecture porn, and nature porn, which do not imply a negative moral judgment upon the aesthetic objects under consideration, invoke a different valence of \u201cporn\u201d. Referring to kinds of images that are especially attractive, such categories draw on a far stranger \u2013 and yet even more revealing \u2013 metaphorical relation to pornography, one that is not reliant on the familiar moral judgments that pornography is inherently exploitative.\nTo explore what it is that makes travel porn and nature porn pornographic, we need to attend to one of the most recognizable porn suffix categories: food porn. The concept of food porn can be traced back to the 1970s (Cockburn), but its contemporary usage is inextricable from its proliferation on social media (McDonnell 245\u2013249). While food porn generally denotes images of food that are particularly glamorised to maximise the sensuous desirability of the food on display (Krogager and Leer 1; Tooming), in its earliest manifestations the term food porn connoted enticing images of rich foods high in fat and sugar (McBride 38). The category thus drew on a valence of \u201cporn\u201d that implied unhealthy or depraved gratification. While traces of such a meaning still arguably remain within the realm of ordinary usage (Krogager and Leer 7; Nguyen and Williams 147), and while some have suggested that the term food porn carries a valence of dismissiveness toward the aesthetic merit of food porn imagery (Tooming), most recent accounts of food porn indicate that the category has broadened to refer to the aesthetic particularity of the image of food more generally (Tooming; McDonnell; Taylor and Keating) \u2013 especially sensuous and textural properties like gooeyness and moistness (Dejmanee 436-437) \u2013 rather than a moral stance on the consumption of such food.\nFood porn thus began partly as a category of moral critique \u2013 casting an overt negative judgment on the object represented \u2013, but became primarily a category of aesthetic indulgence \u2013 only implying the indulgent degree of a viewer\u2019s visual gratification. It is this latter valence that informs categories like car porn and architecture porn, which, between 2005 and 2010, emerged alongside food porn as image-sharing groups on platforms like Flickr and Tumblr, thus cementing a new metaphorical valence of \u201cporn\u201d that has wildly proliferated both online and in ordinary language.\nBut what, precisely, does the \u201cporn\u201d in such terms imply? On the subreddit pages for food porn, Earth porn, and space porn, where one might expect to find an explanation of the category, users are only given vague descriptions indicating the importance of visual beauty. The description of r\/foodporn reads \u201csimple, attractive, and visual\u201d (\u201cr\/FoodPorn\u201d); the description of r\/Earthporn reads \u201camazing images of light and landscape\u201d (\u201cr\/EarthPorn\u201d); and the description of r\/spaceporn reads \u201cSpacePorn is a subreddit devoted to beautiful space images\u201d (\u201cr\/SpacePorn\u201d).\nWhat unites such categories, though, is not mere visual attractiveness but, as a number of scholars have intuited, a kind of \u201cexcess\u201d of such attractiveness (Recuber 29; Dejmanee 429). Consider fig. 1, a highly upvoted photograph of cheeseburgers on the r\/foodporn subreddit. The image is not only attractive or enticing, but it is excessive in its enticement, in its invitation to gratification, specifically through the visual amplification of sensuous particularity \u2013 the gooeyness of melted cheese and the moistness of the burger, tomato, and onion.\n\nFig. 1: An image from the r\/foodporn subreddit. \nWhile many have suggested that food porn\u2019s sensuous appeal indicates a more direct emulation of pornography (Dejmanee; Krogager and Leer; McDonnell; Lapina and Leer; Cruz), a relation undergirded by similarities between the sexual and the gustatory appetites and cultural parallels between the objectifications of food and the female body (Dejmanee 433-34; see also Adams), it is only the general notion of visual excess that is shared by the dozens of other categories of aesthetic indulgence. The picturesque and colourful landscapes in r\/earthporn (fig. 2), the hyper-detailed and hyper-saturated astrophotography in r\/spaceporn (fig. 3), and the ornate and exotic buildings in r\/architectureporn (fig. 4) may not conjure an appetitive desire for what is represented, nor do they necessarily emphasise the sensuous materiality of what they depict, but they do trigger an excess of visual stimulation through an abundance of granular detail, saturated colours, and high contrast colour values. Above all, what seems to unify these images is, in Tisha Dejmanee\u2019s words, an \u201caesthetic of excess\u201d that not only alludes to pornography\u2019s \u201cvivid details to evoke strong reactions in the viewer\u201d (Dejmanee 429), but also implies that the visual gratification I receive from such images is excessive, that it exceeds some kind of boundary of propriety or purpose.\n\nFig. 2: An image from the r\/earthporn subreddit.\n\nFig. 3: An image from the r\/spaceporn subreddit.\n\nFig. 4: An image from the r\/architectureporn subreddit.\nPorn as Aesthetic Judgment\nIf the \u201cporn\u201d in food porn, nature porn, or space porn signifies an aesthetic of excess, an excessive invitation to gratify, then what does such a usage say about our collective attitude about porn? I will argue that such a usage suggests that \u201cporn\u201d has come to stand in for that which exceeds a boundary, for what spills over into the too much. In other words, \u201cporn\u201d is invoked as a signifier that merely signals when sexually explicit art becomes too explicit. Indeed, porn\u2019s association with exceeding or transgressing boundaries is well established. \u201cTransgression\u201d, as Hester has argued, is one of the key attributes associated with pornography that helps to explain the logic of porn suffix categories like medical porn, misery porn, and war porn (Hester 15). In fact, she claims, rhetorically positioning porn as \u201ctransgressive\u201d was a goal unwittingly shared by both pro-sex and anti-porn feminists during the \u201cfeminist sex wars\u201d of the 1970s (Hester 21-34). But I want to suggest that by drawing on the logic of excess in their invocation of porn, categories like food porn and nature porn point to such excess as the defining essence of porn. \u201cPorn\u201d, such categories seem to suggest, is nothing but a label applied to the aesthetic feeling that some boundary \u2013 of intensity, of stimulation, of propriety, of morality, of good taste \u2013 has been crossed.\u00a0\nWhile traditionally pornography is defined as the \u201cgraphic depiction of sexually explicit acts made available for public consumption on a media platform\u201d, especially when \u201ctheir intention is understood to be primarily for the sexual pleasure of the audience member\u201d (Sullivan and McKee 4), such a definition paves over the challenge of identifying exactly what makes a depiction \u201cgraphic\u201d, \u201csexually explicit\u201d, and, most important for distinguishing porn from erotic art (Levinson), intended \u201cfor \u2026 sexual pleasure\u201d (Andrews 459\u2013460). In other words, what are the criteria for these identifying qualities? As many scholars have suggested, and as Justice Stewart\u2019s infamous remarks have only reinforced, there is no consensus on how to distinguish pornography from erotic art (Andrews 457\u2013465). What\u2019s remarkable about the porn suffix in categories like food porn and nature porn is that its primary semantic function \u2013 to merely indicate the excess or transgression of a boundary \u2013 playfully acknowledges this troubling condition. One simply cannot know where the boundary is located, for the difference between food porn and not-food porn, like the difference between porn and not-porn, is felt rather than defined or measured.\nThis is the case because labelling an image as porn, like labelling an image as \u201cfood porn\u201d or \u201cnature porn\u201d, is fundamentally an aesthetic judgment. In Kantian aesthetic theory, aesthetic judgments, like judging a painting beautiful, are distinct from determinative judgments, like identifying a four-legged animal as a cat. Aesthetic judgments are not objective descriptions of the object judged but accounts of one\u2019s feeling toward the judged object. Part of the aim of Kant\u2019s Critique of Judgment is to understand how beauty can be purely subjective \u2013 that is, devoid of any criteria for determining it \u2013 and yet can feel as if it objectively inheres in a beautiful object (Pluhar xxiv).\nWhile judging an object pornographic, unlike judging an object beautiful, is not a purely aesthetic judgment (for it includes some necessary criteria, e.g. the presence of sexual content), such a judgment is nevertheless aesthetic in nature because it requires a certain aesthetic sensitivity to the particularities of the object judged. When Theodor Gracyk argues that judging a film as pornographic requires an attention not to what the film depicts but the film\u2019s \u201cattitude\u201d toward those depictions (Gracyk 106), for example, he is describing the aesthetic nature of such a judgment, for such an attitude cannot be measured with a set of criteria but assessed through a holistic aesthetic encounter with the entire work.\u00a0\nAs an aesthetic judgment, then, the word \u201cpornographic\u201d functions much like the words \u201cgraceful, delicate, dainty, handsome, comely, elegant, [and] garish\u201d, terms that, as aesthetic philosopher Frank Sibley explains, require a certain aesthetic sensitivity to be understood or applied, \u201can ability to notice or discern things\u201d (Sibley 423, italics in original). While we may think of such words, which Sibley calls \u201caesthetic concepts\u201d, as ordinary adjectives, they in fact only masquerade as adjectives like \u201cround\u201d or \u201csquare\u201d, empirical terms of which there are an agreed-upon set of necessary and sufficient criteria. Upon reflection, though, as Sibley argues, \u201cthere are no non-aesthetic features which serve in any circumstances as logically sufficient conditions for applying\u201d such terms (Sibley 424). In Sianne Ngai\u2019s words, such terms, much like \u201ccute, \u201czany\u201d, and \u201cinteresting\u201d, are \u201cessentially \u2018means [by] which one judges under cover of describing\u2019\u201d (Ngai 40). Though describing an image as \u201cpornographic\u201d has much higher stakes than describing it as cute, zany, dainty, or delicate, it operates in much the same way. To describe an image as \u201cpornographic\u201d is to smuggle in subjective judgment \u2013 specifically, a judgment about the feeling of some kind of excess, a feeling of too much\u00a0\u2013 under the cover of objective description. But in the popular imagination, and in ordinary usage of the term \u201cporn\u201d, rarely is this slipperiness acknowledged \u2013 that is, until recently. By invoking porn\u2019s status as an aesthetic concept indicative of excess, categories like food porn and nature porn newly acknowledge the conceptual slipperiness of porn itself.\nBut if food porn and nature porn, like porn itself, are so conceptually slippery, so constituted by aesthetic feeling, how do they maintain consistency as categories? In the absence of definable criteria, such categories \u2013 like all aesthetic concepts \u2013 are maintained largely by a community of perceivers who agree and disagree about particular judgments. As many scholars have suggested, the stability and consistency of aesthetic concepts like genres are not upheld by necessary and sufficient criteria, but by communication and intersubjective verification within a community (see Malone; Fowler; Lena and Peterson). In this regard, it is significant that the proliferation of categories like food porn and nature porn is essentially an outgrowth of image-sharing platforms on social media, where community formation often sustains the activity of aesthetic exchange. In other words, to upload an image of a cheeseburger to the food porn subreddit or to hashtag such an image on Instagram (#foodporn) is not only a means of sorting one\u2019s social media content through categorisation; it also constitutes the inherently social activity of category-formation. Such uploads, hashtags, likes, upvotes, and comments function as aesthetic judgments that invite others to agree or disagree, thereby maintaining (and also continually reshaping) the boundaries of a category through social exchange.\nSuch social exchange is indicative of what Hannah Arendt has called the fundamental \u201cother-directedness \u2026 of judgment and taste\u201d (Arendt 68), a point she draws from Kant\u2019s claim that part of the very nature of beauty is the desire to share our experience of it with others (Kant 159\u2013162). This social exchange is the means by which aesthetic concepts like food porn and nature porn are formed and maintained, for the participants in this exchange may not be able to define food porn or nature porn but they know it when they see it. In this way, the fundamental indeterminacy of these frivolous \u201cporn\u201d categories is a playful reminder that porn itself is an aesthetic concept, a category whose practical use is maintained solely by a continuing history of aesthetic judgments.\nConclusion\nIn this article, I have argued that a particular way we use the word \u201cporn\u201d today can tell us something about our conceptual understanding of porn itself. Specifically, I\u2019ve suggested that the usage of the word \u201cporn\u201d in categories like food porn and nature porn acknowledges and reflects upon porn\u2019s status as an aesthetic concept and its intimate relation to the aesthetic faculty.\nA cursory glance at such a phenomenon might suggest that, more than anything, this particular usage of the porn suffix says more about our own self-flagellating or shameful attitude toward media overconsumption than it does about porn. Indeed, as some scholars have suggested, the word \u201cporn\u201d in these contexts may seem to function as a signifier of the moral depravity of pleasure-seeking media consumption. For Hester, the porn suffix within food porn and travel porn implies our submission \u201cto a consumerist spectacle\u201d (188); for Robert Myers, the porn suffix \u201creflects our era of excess, a pornocopia based on visual glut\u201d (31); and for Jan Grue, the suffix signifies an \u201cuncritical aesthetic appreciation\u201d (841). On such a view, the porn suffix in food porn and nature porn is consistent with a societal tendency to exploit \u201cthe condemnatory potential of the associations with pornography\u201d (Smith 104), a practice most evident in terms like trauma porn and poverty porn.\nBut if we merely consider the playful valence of terms like food porn or nature porn \u2013 and the playful and positive tone of the image-sharing platforms through which the terms have proliferated \u2013 the sense of an excessively gratifying or \u201cuncritical\u201d consumption invoked by the word \u201cporn\u201d does not need to imply guilt or shame. Instead, as I have tried to suggest, food porn and nature porn use \u201cporn\u201d as a signifier of the pursuit of visual pleasure for its own sake. Even more than an abandonment of the \u201ccritical\u201d faculties, the word \u201cporn\u201d indicates a gratification so excessive that it disables every faculty but the aesthetic faculty. What the consumer of food porn or nature porn is judging is nothing but the sensuous, superficial, and pleasing qualities of the image of an object, and she is doing so with reckless abandon, with an unmitigated pursuit of pleasure and aesthetic stimulation. Simply put, \u201cporn\u201d has come to stand in for the aesthetic faculty itself.\nReferences\nAdams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum, 2010.\nAndrews, David. \u201cToward A More Valid Definition of \u2018Pornography'.\u201d\u00a0Journal of Popular Culture\u00a045.3 (2012): 457\u2013477.\nArendt, Hannah. Lectures on Kant\u2019s Political Philosophy. Trans. Ronald Beiner. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1982.\nCockburn, Alexander. \u201cGastro-Porn.\u201d New York Review of Books 8 Dec. 1977. &lt;https:\/\/www.nybooks.com\/articles\/1977\/12\/08\/gastro-porn\/&gt;.\nCruz, Ariane. \u201cGettin\u2019 Down Home with the Neelys: Gastro-Porn and Televisual Performances of Gender, Race, and Sexuality.\u201d Women &amp; Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory\u00a023.3 (2013): 323\u2013349.\nDejmanee, Tisha. \"Food Porn\u201d as Postfeminist Play: Digital Femininity and the Female Body on Food Blogs.\u201d Television &amp; New Media\u00a017.5 (2016): 429\u2013448.\nFowler, Alastair. Kinds of Literature. An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1982.\nGracyk, Theodore A. \u201cPornography as Representation: Aesthetic Considerations.\u201d\u00a0Journal of Aesthetic Education\u00a021.4 (1987): 103\u2013121.\nGrue, Jan. \u201cThe Problem with Inspiration Porn: A Tentative Definition and a Provisional Critique.\u201d\u00a0Disability &amp; Society\u00a031.6 (2016): 838\u2013849.\nHester, Helen.\u00a0Beyond Explicit: Pornography and the Displacement of Sex. New York: State U of New York P, 2014.\nKant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Trans. W.S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987.\nKrogager, Stinne Gunder Str\u00f8m, and Jonatan Leer. \u201cFood Porn 2.0? Definitions, Challenges, and Potentials of an Elusive Concept.\u201d Journal of Aesthetics &amp; Culture\u00a016.1 (2024): 2354552.\nLapi\u0146a, Linda, and Jonatan Leer. \u201cCarnivorous Heterotopias: Gender, Nostalgia and Hipsterness in the Copenhagen Meat Scene.\u201d Norma 11.2 (2016): 89\u2013109. &lt;https:\/\/doi.org\/10. 1080\/18902138.2016.1184479&gt;.\nLena, Jennifer C., and Richard A. Peterson. \u201cClassification as Culture: Types and Trajectories of Music Genres.\u201d\u00a0American Sociological Review\u00a073.5 (2008): 697\u2013718.\nLevinson, Jerrold. \u201cErotic Art and Pornographic Pictures.\u201d\u00a0Philosophy and Literature\u00a029.1 (2005): 228\u2013240.\nLockwood, Dean. \u201cAll Stripped Down: The Spectacle of 'Torture Porn'.\u201d Popular Communication\u00a07.1 (2009): 40\u201348.\nMalone, Emmie. \u201cThe Ontology and Aesthetics of Genre.\u201d\u00a0Philosophy Compass\u00a019.1 (2024): e12958.\nMcBride, Anne. \u201cFood Porn.\u201d Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies 13.1 (2010): 38\u201346.\nMcDonnell, Erin Metz. \u201cFood Porn: The Conspicuous Consumption of Food in the Age of Digital Reproduction.\u201d\u00a0Food, Media and Contemporary Culture: The Edible Image. Ed. Peri Bradley. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 239\u2013265.\nNgai, Sianne. Our Aesthetic Categories: Zany, Cute, Interesting. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2012.\nNguyen, C. Thi, and Bekka Williams. \u201cMoral Outrage Porn.\u201d Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.\u00a018 (2020): 147\u2013172.\nPluhar, Werner. \u201cTranslator\u2019s Introduction.\u201d Critique of Judgment. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987.\n\u201cr\/FoodPorn.\u201d Reddit.com, n.d. &lt;https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/foodporn&gt;.\n\u201cr\/HumanPorn.\u201d Reddit.com, n.d. &lt;https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/humanporn&gt;.\n\u201cr\/EarthPorn.\u201d Reddit.com, n.d. &lt;https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/earthporn&gt;.\n\u201cr\/SpacePorn.\u201d Reddit.com, n.d. &lt;https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/spaceporn&gt;.\nRecuber, Timothy. \u201cDisaster Porn!\u201d Contexts 12.2 (2013): 28-33.\nRomm, Cari. \u201cWhat \u2018Food Porn' Does to the Brain.\u201d\u00a0The Atlantic 20 Apr. 2015. &lt;https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/health\/archive\/2015\/04\/what-food-porn-does-to-the-brain\/390849\/&gt;.\nSibley, Frank. \u201cAesthetic Concepts.\u201d The Philosophical Review 68.4 (1959): 421\u2013450.\nSmiralePas1907. \u201cOne of the Most Famous Burger Shops in Naples Italy.\u201d Reddit 5 Feb. 2020. &lt;https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/FoodPorn\/comments\/ez9a1k\/one_of_the_most_famous_burger_shops_in_naples\/&gt;\nSmith, Clarissa. \u201cPornographication: A Discourse for All Seasons.\u201d International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 6.1 (2010): 103\u2013108.\nSullivan, Rebecca, and Alan McKee. Pornography: Structures, Agency and Performance. Cambridge: Polity P, 2015.\nTaylor, Nathan, and Megan Keating. \u201cContemporary Food Imagery: Food Porn and Other Visual Trends.\u201d\u00a0Communication Research and Practice\u00a04.3 (2018): 307\u2013323.\nThorneycroft, Ryan. \u201cPornographication: Exploring the \u2018Porn\u2019 in \u2018Inspiration Porn\u2019.\u201d Porn Studies\u00a0(2023): 1\u201314 &lt;https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/23268743.2023.2251493&gt;.\nTooming, Uku. \u201cAesthetics of Food Porn.\u201d\u00a0Cr\u00edtica (M\u00e9xico, DF)\u00a053.157 (2021): 127\u2013150.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.5204\/mcj.3081","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,9]],"date-time":"2024-08-09T01:22:34Z","timestamp":1723166554000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["The Pornification of Everything"],"prefix":"10.5204","volume":"27","author":[{"given":"Jordan","family":"Schonig","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"3230","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,9]]},"container-title":["M\/C Journal"],"original-title":[],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,9]],"date-time":"2024-08-09T01:22:35Z","timestamp":1723166555000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journal.media-culture.org.au\/index.php\/mcjournal\/article\/view\/3081"}},"subtitle":["Food Porn, Nature Porn, and the Aesthetic Foundations of the Porn Suffix"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,9]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,7]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5204\/mcj.3081","relation":{},"ISSN":["1441-2616"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1441-2616","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,8,9]]}}}