Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 do…
> 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.) 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 u…
It is absolutely American English, but dated. The people you know are probably just too young; if you have doubts here is a New York Times review of the American blue movie titled Blue Movie which uses “blue movie” (as well as “stag film”) to refer to the class of films to which Blue Movie belongs:
https://www.nytimes.com/1969/07/22/archives/screen-andy-warh...