Actually, I made this point on the other thread and want to repeat it here.
Speaking as a kid who was abused for images to be distributed - which I’ve learned the last few years were distributed much further/more than I had previously been aware of- there is ‘child porn’ that is images of abuse and should be referred to as such.
But there is also child pornography also. That doesn’t contain images of abuse.
Like ‘barely legal’ porn, or like adults dressed as children or child faces super imposed on adults bodies in porn or pictures of kids at the beach running about in underwear -that are entirely innocent and sweet and appropriate in the hands of decent parents, but used by peadophiles for pornographic reasons.
There’s a wide ‘middle ground’ that feeds peadophilia and propels them towards accessing images of abuse. Because this child porn that isn’t images of abuse manages to remove boundaries and sanitise the idea of child abuse. So they can access this without shame from stigma, and that provides the means to develop neural pathways that mean they need to seek out more extreme material to provide the same mental feedback or stimulation to satisfy their perversion. So it escalates to images of abuse. And then to hands on abuse of children.
The likes of map arguments about child porn tends to argue in favour of this child porn, with the excuse it doesn’t involve actual children. But it does lead to accessing actual images of child abuse.
I think it matters to use both definitions accurately so the pro map crowd can’t diminish the pro child porn argument by obfuscation of these terms.