A nude isn't automatically "intimate" either. Nor is nudity the only aspect that might make an image "intimate", or even the most important one. Nor does "intimacy" capture anything remotely like all of the reasons the material might be painful or embarassing for somebody. In fact, if I were looking for something vaguely silly to be offended by, I'd suggest that it was a bad idea to tell the subjects of those images what they should consider to be intimate or why they should feel offended by the images being shared... as the use of "intimate" tends to do.
Oh, and "images" unreasonably limits the scope of the media that might be problems.
Not all of the images are shared nonconsensually, either, at least not initially. And there are all kinds of forms and layers of consent. So, if you want to be all technically correct, you probably shouldn't bring that in either.
In other words, like all terminology, "NCII" is imprecise. In fact, I think it's a true step down from "revenge porn", even if you ignore the fact that you shouldn't change terminology for trivial reasons to begin with.
It is NOT an improvement. It's people arguing over minutiae so they can feel informed, feel like they're helping, and get a rush out of "correcting" everybody else.
Oh, and "images" unreasonably limits the scope of the media that might be problems.
Not all of the images are shared nonconsensually, either, at least not initially. And there are all kinds of forms and layers of consent. So, if you want to be all technically correct, you probably shouldn't bring that in either.
In other words, like all terminology, "NCII" is imprecise. In fact, I think it's a true step down from "revenge porn", even if you ignore the fact that you shouldn't change terminology for trivial reasons to begin with.
It is NOT an improvement. It's people arguing over minutiae so they can feel informed, feel like they're helping, and get a rush out of "correcting" everybody else.