It's not that "extreme" horror movies aren't exploitative or generally meant for entertainment, just that it is unfair to call them out as being any more "pornographic" than any other movie genre, for various reasons some of which are detailed in that article. It's basically that specific, derogatory terminology I take offense to. I think the most cogent point she makes is that they're usually anti-violence, e.g. the Hostel movies she uses as an example which are arguably very crude satires of the business class (I don't care for them myself, fwiw.) So, really no more pornographic than a gratuitously violent anti-war film like Saving Private Ryan!
The argument that exploitation films are somehow more palatable because they are against the things being glorified is actually a pretty heavily used one. It doesn't hold water for several reasons. First, the exploitation films are always targeted towards people who are watching the films precisely because of the extreme themes being presented. Second, the exploitation films are are not all the same, while a few may have such oppositional themes presented in the narrative, the vast majority do not. The vast majority are absolutely in that sense not ironic, they are unabashedly glorifying whatever it is that is being exploited.
Insofar as the term 'torture porn' is concerned, I don't see anything wrong with that terminology, especially in an age where pornography itself increasingly doesn't have the taboo associated with it that it might have had even a few decades ago. The terminology properly associates the exploitation described, in this case sadistic and graphic violence, with the fact that just like pornography, people who are fans of this sub-genre of horror are absolutely being in some way, shape, or form titillated with the scenes of grotesque violence. So the terminology is factually correct, even if philosophically you may disagree with it in certain cases where the film has apparently a deeper ironic theme of rejecting what is being shown on the screen.
Pertaining to your example, Saving Private Ryan is extremely violent and features flying body parts, but it is not regarded as being exploitative because there isn't a fundamental intent to glorify or titillate. Movies like Saw and Hostel are, because they are focusing entirely on the graphic depiction of violence and are made with the intent of attracting viewers who desire to see these things being shown. This is why a film like Eyes Wide Shut is not regarded as pornography, and not just because that movie kind of sucked. The purpose of pornography is to titillate, and so is the genre of horror called 'torture porn', whereas a film like Saving Private Ryan or Eyes Wide Shut absolutely isn't intended to.
This is also completely off-topic in the animu thread, so if you want to discuss this more, feel free to make a thread or PM me.
I'm pleased you read the article, though!
It was interesting to read!
Do they involve suffering emanating from torture? Are power tools used? I barely have time for A-dramas so I have to prioritize.
Did you ever watch Highschool of the Dead? It had a very nice use of a drill in the second episode. If you enjoy power tools, you should play the Dead Rising games, you can do many fun things with power tools in those games! :3
Yes, you have guessed correctly. I am a fan of the zombie genre. That's also a fundamentally exploitative genre, though George A. Romero always snuck in Dat Social Commentary in his zombie films and many of his successors have followed suit.