Hello HQ please can we chat about a particular phrase

Supported.

I also strongly agree with TheDefiant about the use of the word 'porn' in relation to food, property and any other attention-seeking nonsense. I've always thought that people who tacked that word on were thick-witted and, they really are.

Lack of vocabulary doesn't mean that you need to mis-appropriate something that is so negatively loaded.

I hadn't given this any thought, had no idea that these weren't the words to use but actually, you're right OP (and all other posters who've said this). It's the word 'porn' that is abjectly wrong.

I support you also, OP.

Another vote for this. Pornography implies consent (obviously I know that in some cases it isn't consensual) and that can't be the case with children. Images of child sexual abuse is far more accurate.

Strongly agree with this. The word porn has become acceptable.

Look at food porn or property porn etc etc

What happens to children is never acceptable.

I've been campaigning this amongst friends for years. Never thought about asking Mumsnet to make it a banned term.

Great idea OP. 100% behind you.

We need to reinforce the fact it's illegal, unacceptable, abuse, exploitation because otherwise you end up with people (men) thinking it's ok.

As in I had an ex-friend who though it was ok to "use" this material as apparently it "stopped people abusing children" (this ex-friend didn't use, but was his opinions of those who did). I had to point out there was a real life victim.

Words matter. This is one of those that really matter.

Erroll-oh completely agree its abusive behaviour but don't want to minimise the effect on those victims of child abuse.

I agree with you 100% OP. Thank you for raising it.

And pictures creepy people took of children playing/ play areas/beaches etc.

It's abusive behaviour, even if the child is unaware of it, isn't it? The perpetrator doesn't care whether or not the child later becomes aware of it and is traumatised by it.

@Prawncow thanks for the explanation.

I have to say, for me, sexual child abuse doesn’t convey the same horror than child pornography. It feels more neutral (and legal speak), like you don’t want to call a spade a spade.
But English isn’t my first language, I’m in my 50s so probably still have this negative connotation associated to porn.

So yes I get it.

@LilyMumsnet if you are going down the route of saying ‘this is not an acceptable wording’, I think you’ll have to ALSO accept there will be a need to explaining why. Because I suspect that many people will not have made the type of connexion @Prawncow explains, nor would they see the issue.

Much of pornography could easily be called images of woman abuse so to me ruling out child pornography as a term seems inconsistent if you view pornography in general as abusive, as I do.

Better a bit of inconsistency than not address the specific issue though. Porn may often/usually be abusive but it is at least possible for an adult to consent. There's a clear line that children can't.

There is no such thing as "child pornography". Pornography implies that both parties were consenting. And children cannot consent. It is child sexual abuse.

We will never change language, and attitudes, unless we act. I agree with the OP.

Much of pornography could easily be called images of woman abuse so to me ruling out child pornography as a term seems inconsistent if you view pornography in general as abusive, as I do.

With that said I still support and prefer to use the term child sexual abuse material as the ways in which "child porn" and "regular porn" are inherently abusive are slightly different.

😔. Its all horrible. Thankyou for answering me.

I think mumsnet really should be using correct langauge it's a parenting website and even if people use it without knowledge it really is a chance to educate. If a parenting website can't get it right who can?

I really doubt that children who have been posed for photos are only posed for photos. It’s the first stage of the abuse.

Thankyou Prawncow. And I'm not condoning any of it all obviously just there's a distinction on my head maybe between posed photos and child abuse. None of it right and having come from an abusive childhood myself (not sexual abuse/only attempted once) can only imagine what children who have been through this have been through. Its horrific. So completely support the importance for language to call it what it is.

A bit like when it seems in the past young teen girls used for prostitution almost seemed to blame the girls and not the abuse.

And gosh yes must be a horrible job 😔. It must really affect people.

If you want to know AmazingLemonDrizzle, UK law has 3 categories for images. They range from the posed images you mention, C, to the most severe at A. If you read news reports of convictions, they often mention that eg of the hundreds of images of child abuse found on the person’s computer, over 200 were category A. It must be a soul destroying job for the people who have to go through the seized evidence and categorise those images.

Yes. 'Pornography' used to be shameful and taboo, nowadays we have 'porn star martinis'. I don't know if the likes of M&S are still stocking them but it's an indicator of how utterly trivialised and normalised the word - and deed - have become.

Words matter because they frame how we think. Calling it pornography focuses on the use/user of the images. Calling it abuse focuses on the child and their suffering.

I’ve used the term. This isn’t about demonising people who use it, it’s about finding a better term. Language changes, society changes. When the term child pornography was first used, we didn’t have widespread access to (adult) pornography at a click, pornography wasn’t considered socially acceptable. The word pornography carried a lot of negative judgement. It doesn’t now. We need a better term.

Nothing UK-centric about it. I’m neither from nor currently living in the UK.

Surely you can see that the phrase ‘child porn’ puts the emphasis on the paedophile using it for arousal purposes, rather than on a child being sexually abused? It trivialises a crime. Images of child abuse are crime-scene photos.

Wanting to be educated here - and don't want to Google for obvious reasons.

I completely understand why language is important and support the shift in terminology.

I think I (maybe naiively) though that images of children dressed provocatively /posed erotically came under "child porn" . And pictures creepy people took of children playing/ play areas/beaches etc. So perhaps assumed that's what sometimes was being referred to.

Is there a distinction to be had between children abused and those types of pictures? Or was it never about those pictures that some people got off too?

Or is it all called child abuse?

Huge apologies if writing this wrong. I genuinely want to be correct in future (another "thing I've learnt from mumsnet) as it is so important.

It was very interesting to see which posters were comfortable using it earlier today.

I wouldn't draw any conclusions about someone who used that term. The change in language, while very welcome, is nowhere near in general parlance yet. It takes time for that to happen, and plenty of perfectly reasonable and thoughtful people will not yet have learned that the language is changing.

Absolutely agree that 'child porn' and 'child pornography' are abhorrent phrases and should not be acceptable on a parenting website.

It was very interesting to see which posters were comfortable using it earlier today.
I didn't see the thread earlier today but want to add my support for challenging those phrases.

The suggestions about a reason with a post deletion message are good so that more people realise why they're not appropriate ways to discuss child abuse.

Exactly. Adding my voice to this. It’s not a minor thing. It grants images of child sexual abuse for commercial purposes a kind of “legitimacy’ as a subset of ‘pornography’.

So would you happily put up with some of the racist and ablist terms which were freely used in the past?
No. It's much better that people are educated as to why certain language is damaging. I think there's a middle way possible between blanket censorship and 'wagging fingers' and laissez faire. I'd hope MNers in general and MNHQ in particular would have gentleness and tact towards victims who might use the term because that's what they've always heard it called. Otoh people who persist using toxic terminology once they've had the problem explained... that's a different matter.