Your own personal definition that nobody else uses is not something you can demand of people. There is no accepted definition of “pornography” that limits it to a particular age range.
Child pornography and child abuse are not different things. Child pornography is a form of child abuse. Demanding that people call it “abuse” instead of “pornography” is just demanding that they be nonspecific.
People understand that child pornography is abuse. That’s why it’s illegal and dealt with harshly. That’s why being caught as a consumer and/or producer of it destroys a person socially. That’s why the vast majority of people only use the term with disgust. We know how horrible it is, nobody is trying to normalize it or minimize how bad it is.
That’s why this thread even exists in the first place. Any association with it, even indirect, is stigmatizing.
The next band meeting is going to be awkward. “Joe, I’m pretty sure we covered this in orientation, but do you recall what’s the first rule of New Pornographers? It’s really simple.”
Many years ago, I read a magazine article about Iron Maiden, and one of the members said they’d gotten a package of tracts, books, and a Bible, and one of the books was “Music: The New Pornography” by (of all people) Jimmy Swaggart, pre-arrest, and one of the band members was on the cover.
This thread is about the band, the new pornographers. The discussion on what words to use to describe the actions of the member who was who was caught with sexual images of children has gone on more than long enough. I apologize for my part of that hijack. If you want to keep discussing that, please take it to another thread.
She constantly shifted between solo and band albums in the last 20 years or so, so there never has been a notable preference for her. I really like her music, and it’s sad that her and her bandmates’ reputations got tainted by their asshole drummer. Fuck this guy.