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

I think I agree with DonkeySkin - but then as far as I'm concerned most porn is horribly exploitative and most women (and no doubt many men) involved in the industry are being raped and brutalized.

I can see why people who think adult porn is fine might want to draw a different distinction. Hopefully they are also in favour of renaming rape porn as images of sexual abuse.

If this is in reference to the news today, I caught a bit of Victoria Derbyshire this morning and noticed that they were referring to images of child abuse rather than child porn and was pleased (?! - not pleased but my brain is too foggy tonight to think of the right word) that someone had the sense to use that terminology.

I don't think you're being unreasonable, but I agree with DonkeySkin.

"CHILD PORN"

That's two hard-hitting words.
It's no wonder the papers print them.
Great for headlines.

It is not close to any definition of pornography.

Dictionary.com defines pornography as 'printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement' - so yes, films and pictures of children being raped, that are produced and disseminated as masturbation aids, absolutely fit this definition.

It is abuse and vile material of the highest order.

Completely agree. And consider the fact that a lot of pornography that doesn't feature children is also abusive and vile. Some posters seem to be motivated by a desire to protect the category of 'porn' from any suggestion that it might not always be, as bingo says, a "jolly bit of consensual fun." But porn doesn't work that way. It is often produced under abusive conditions, and indeed the recording of abusive acts is often the point of it, for the consumer, in terms of its function in as a masturbation aid.

I'm not arguing that child porn isn't in its own category of unique awfulness. Quite the opposite. As I stated upthread, the term 'child abuse imagery' is actually less impactful, in terms of provoking both outrage and disgust, than 'child porn' because it deliberately excises the sexual gratification motive behind the production and consumption of those images.

Interesting point, donkey.

I think the intention behind using "images of CSA" is to focus on the harm to the child (which is what makes it heinous and unlawful) rather than the "benefits" to the producers/consumers (which do not mitigate!).

As an aside, I don't know what one should call similar images but of cartoon/cgi characters. Are they still images of child abuse because they simulate child abuse?

MrsHathaway They are prohibited images of children

I've complained to the BBC before about using this phrase. It's offensive and "normalises" child abuse.

I've also complained to the BBC about their use of the phrase "suicide bombers" in relation to 10 year olds who have bombs strapped to them and are then blown up in crowded places.

I've never had anything other than an automated response in reply.

Emma you're spot on with regards child "suicide" bombers as they are being killed rather than committing suicide, but to say the phrase CP "normalises" abuse is a disservice to the rest of us. As others have said there is nothing about that combination of words that is normal and using them together doesn't turn us into idiots on the verge of accepting it as hunky-dory.

Thanks insert.

I disagree

Everyone knows exactly what is meant by child porn. The most heinous images or video possible.

'Images of child abuse' is more open to misunderstanding of the exact nature of the images.

The phrase "child pornography" is only offensive to people who don't actually know what "pornography" means.

Gingergenius has cut and pasted a handy definition of the word "pornography" upthread for those who are unclear and can't use google .

I find people who redefine the meaning of a word to something incorrect and then get offended by their own bizarre definition a bit odd.

Agree they’re pictures of child sex abuse.

However whilst I think the term “child porn” is hideous I disagree it implies consent, it’s framing as a subset of something legal (porn generally) that is problematic as it implies a legitimacy that doesn’t exist.

YABU. I was forced into making explicit images when I was a child. I've always referred to it as "child prom" and everyone has always understood the lack of consent without me having to explain.

I thought this may be one of the rare unanimous YANBUs.

But no. There are ignorant people everywhere.

YANBU you find the term offensive.

YABU to tell us it's offensive.

As many people have pointed out no one sees those two words together and thinks " ah that's nice getting their children involved"

We understand it's not a good thing and I'd also agree that using porn makes it sound worse not better. Less sanitised as pp have mentioned.

Child porn literally means sexual video or pictures of a child

It exactly describes what it is and i challenge anyone to find a non paedophile who thinks it in any way implies consent of child

Are you trying to insult people into agreement Stoic? There have been rational arguments put forward in disagreement, and whilst you may not agree with them they are far from ignorant. Ironically the basis for the OP is a misunderstanding of what porn is.

I think that the reason why this term gets flagged nowadays is due to the analogy with the term "child prostitution."

I remember when I was a teenager, you used to hear the term "child prostitution" and it was very unclear what was going on, and there was a definite feeling of "little tarts getting up to no good" etc. Nowadays we use terms like grooming to describe the same phenomenom, and I think that moving towards new terms has been very helpful in getting people to see the scary power dynamics going on.

I am not sure that trying to get rid of the term "child porn" is necessary. "Child porn" has never involved any kind of confusion about consent and I have never heard of anyone thinking about it in this kind of way.

Part of the difference perhaps lies in the age groups concerned. When people talk about "child prostitution," they were talking about large age ranges which included (and in fact mostly involved) girls in their teens. This, I think, is part of the reason why it was easier for commentators to paint this as consensual on the part of the girls. By contrast, with "child porn," this almost by definition involves only pre-pubertal children--I think that is probably why there has never been any attempt to imply that the kids were consenting or asking for it.

*Are you trying to insult people into agreement Stoic?^

Not at all. There will always be ignorant and uninformed people. That’s life.

Pornography does not in any way imply consent. And its the thing that is offensive,. getting hung up on the terminology is just stupid.

Also, things like "images of child abuse" are confusing and risk muddling the issue.

They imply that we are talking exclusively about children being raped or penetrated etc. Whereas in fact, they cover things like children standing around naked in a neutral pose. A child standing around naked in a neutral pose is not inherently abusive (obviously)--it is the fact that it is being photographed and distributed and wanked over that is the problem.

Stoic's use of the word "ignorant" is an irony to savour.

However whilst I think the term “child porn” is hideous I disagree it implies consent, it’s framing as a subset of something legal (porn generally) that is problematic as it implies a legitimacy that doesn’t exist.

How succinctly and aptly put, Willow. A subset of "porn" rather than a subset of "abuse". Obviously there's an overlap between the two worlds.