To remind posters that the term 'Child Porn' is offensive?

[BucksFrizz]

It implies consent when they are actually images/film of children being sexually abused.
If we keep bumping this, maybe people will get the message.
Thank you

YANBU. The words child and porn should never be used in conjunction with each other.

The term Child abuse images conveys the seriousness of the offence a lot better imo.

I appreciate that I’m not the only one with the viewpoint @bingolittle and that you understand what I mean.

Of course the term "child pornography" is appalling, because those are two concepts which should never go together. But it is accurate and in no way incompatible with the term "images of child abuse."

X-posted - bingo, I agree with you and Llanali.

Another interesting point @donkeyskin

I hadn’t thought about that side, but it’s a valid one. I think I agree, that perhaps there is an argument that other phrases are somehow sanitized.

Every day is a school day. I never thought about this before but I totally agree now that I've thought about it. Thanks for posting this.

Porn is usually filmed with consent. Child abuse isn’t.
YANBU. It minimises the impact of the child abuse!

Money is not a substitute for consent. Porn is abuse. Simple as that.

YANBU.

I wish someone would teach the Daily Mail this.

That’s one of the reasons I add the word sexual donkey

Clue is in the words used. Everyone here seems to know what it really means.

Agree with user, nike and donkey...

I agree with DonkeySkin

I think the term child porn is offensive in the context of abuse, and the media is lazy in its terminology- though I really can't see the link to condoning abuse.

There is another category that fits the term through the lens of social media - when the broadcasters are referrencing issues regarding self-produced child pornograghy. This pertains to sexting, and children posting really inapropriate videos and images of themselves online.. Unless grooming is involved - it is a correct usage, clarified better when "self-produced" is added.

CommanderDaisy, so your contention is that the only child pornographers in the world are... children themselves?

Clue is in the words used. Everyone here seems to know what it really means Yeah, because that's what's important. Never mind that people are saying it's offensive. The only thing that really matters is that everyone understands that the child isn't actually consenting.

I really don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand. It's irrelevant what the definition of pornography is. It's irrelevant that people understand that consent isn't involved. It's irrelevant whether the term is kiddie porn or child porn. The only relevant thing is that the term is offensive and hurtful. So knowing that, why would any decent, sensitive human being with an ounce of compassion in them continue to use it?

I don’t agree wth you bingo about pornography “not even vaguely implying” consent on the part of the people involved. I do think that, rightly or wrongly, most people assume (even if subconsciously) that the people involved have consented. It’s shady, sure, but most people will happily assume that everyone they are wanking to onscreen was there by choice. Or they may not think about it at all.

But no, I don’t think most people’s default position is to assume that all porn actors are there against their will.

DonkeySkin , no.

However I will never hear the words ‘child pornography/prostitution’ and think there’s an element of consent from the child involved. It is an oxymoron, no right minded person would (in my opinion) ever hear those words and use it as a way of excusing or normalising such vile acts

That's the whole point. It's like not making jokes about (say) domestic violence because you don't know what sadistic fuck is listening and inferring you condone it.

Pornography is culturally/linguistically neutral; abuse is not. By using the word "abuse" you are leaving no room for anyone to misinterpret your views on the matter.

It's not the consent OR the lack of consent of the participants that makes it pornography. It's the subject matter and the intended use and purpose.

Hence the fact that porn can feature both consenting and non-consenting adults, and amy shades of coercion/exploitation between. And, sadly, children, who by definition are non-consenting.

pornography
pɔːˈnɒɡrəfi/Submit
noun
noun: pornography
printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement.
synonyms: erotica, pornographic material, pornographic literature/films/videos, hard-core pornography, soft-core pornography, dirty books; More
smut, filth, vice;
informalporn, hard porn, soft porn, porno, skin/girlie magazines, cheesecake, pornies;
datedfacetiae;
curiosa

The term child pornography in no way minimises the fact that it is non consential.

Usining the word 'child' in front of the word 'pornography' denotes the fact that children are being used and abused for the purpose of the viewers' gratification. In no way does it imply that consent is given by the child.

It is heinous and I don't think any decent person believes that the phrase child pornography' somehow legitimises it. Instead of worrying about the terminology, how about we work collectively to try and eradicate the disgusting practice of adults viewing children being sexually exploited for their own sexual gratification.

By using the word "abuse" you are leaving no room for anyone to misinterpret your views on the matter.

My point was asking who would misinterpret my ‘views’ on the matter if I were to use the terms ‘child pornography/prostitution’. Whilst I can absolutely see how those terms are not acceptable to the majority, my issue with the op was that I personally couldn’t see how any normal person could ‘misinterpret’ those words to give any inclination that it was in anyway anything but abhorrent and illegal and certainly nothing consensual.

You (plural) keep saying "no decent person". It's not the decent people we're worried about. It's the baddies who look for any perceived acceptance of what they do. They ain't going to find it here.

I'm a bit disturbed by the tendency of some posters who seem to want to make up their own definition of "porn" - something like "jolly bit of consensual fun."

That's not how language works (and it's not always how the porn industry works, either...)

If you're going to ask people not to use a word, you should probably double check first to make sure you know what it actually means.

Absolutely agree with you! It is not close to any definition of pornography. It is abuse and vile material of the highest order.

It's the baddies who look for any perceived acceptance of what they do.

Of course, but that’s why they’re ‘the baddies’, or the sick minded and pure evil as the rest of us see them.

No one is going to see ‘their point’ on the matter, and more the case it doesn’t matter how you label it, these sick people will always try and justify what they do. We can change our language of course, but it will not change it happening - that is a bigger issue as I’m sure goes without saying.