Ok. I don’t find that to be a very convincing argument but, again, if some academics want to say CSAM then they should go for it. Ironically, the clinical term mainly reminds me of the weirdos who make sure to say “Erm, actually that’s Hebephilia, not Pedophilia…” when you’re calling some dude a pedo for raping middle school kids. It may be clinically accurate but calling someone a pedo holds weight like saying they’re into child porn holds weight.
My impression is that in modern American English, “pornography” still has significant negative connotations, but “porn” really doesn’t. Many people will casually admit to viewing “porn”, but I’ve never heard anyone self-identify as a consumer of “pornography”. In addition, it has crept into the language as a descriptor of some innocuous content such as “food porn”. So I am somewhat more inclined than I was before I read this thread to view the term “kiddie porn” as problematic.
Not if it’s something that is understood to really matter. Correcting people’s word usage when everyone else understands what they meant is generally considered rude (and prescriptivism, which people generally do not like).
It’s just hard to get some to realize when word usage really matters.
I think anything that is a step towards decreasing rape culture matters.
On this board? Usually seems like prescriptivists outnumber descriptivists, handily.
…and then it turns out they’re just into loli hentai. Which isn’t considered CSAM, sensu strictu.
Also, you’re saying calling someone a child sex abuser doesn’t hold weight?
To save others the trouble of googling, this refers to cartoons depicting kids in sexual situations, which no actual children were harmed in the making of.
I’m saying that “kiddie porn” rings better than “CSAM”. Which is the supposedly preferred term. Someone who “just” looks at the material isn’t an abuser in any direct sense. You’d be saying “Viewer of CSAM” or something.
I have no problem saying weirdos jerking it to cartoons of five year olds getting raped are into kiddie porn and CSAM not applying is one more reason for me to leave the term to the academics.
OK but that then sounds like wanting a term you can use as a cudgel to hit the consumers of the media. As opposed to one to describe them.
Sure. I think there’s value in having a term that culturally sounds repellent rather than dryly clinical.
You do you. Like I said I’m OK with the casual usage but TBH I’d rather the discourse seek to bring attention to real child sexual abuse even if that sounds “dry” than to heap hate upon someone for wanking over an imaginary cartoon.
Would you invite them to babysit your kids?
I think the term “homicide” should be renamed because of the fond memories people have of Homicide: Life on the Street. I suggest CCTOAHL (criminally culpable taking of a human life).
No. But i might hire them to be an actuary, and just not talk about that stuff. Whereas I wouldn’t hire a person that i thought had sexually abused children.
To be clear, I was replying exclusively to the claims in the post about how “Americans” think about being corrected, and not the further context of the thread.
(I’d quote something of the post I’m responding to, but I’m not sure what fits)
The idea is that those who acquire child porn are in fact contributing to the abuse, and is the justification for why it is illegal.
I would never call drawing child pornography for that very reason. I’d much rather pedophiles have all the drawings they want if they can not offend.
Child pornography has actual children in it, who had to be abused for the photo to even exist.
But they are not abusers at that moment. I eat eggs and thus incentivize raising chickens but this doesn’t make me a farmer.
Nope. I don’t use porn and rarely think about it. I am certainly not holding myself forth as an expert.
So, i probably will avoid using “kiddie porn” going forward. As for whether I’ll use “child sexual abuse material” or “child pornography”, that will likely be situational. The first isn’t well enough known to use it without starting a discussion about language. And most of the times i foresee wanting to talk about the topic are likely to be discussing the practices of some person. And in those situations, i don’t want to detract from the discussion of abuse by creating a side discussion of language.
But i expect “child sexual abuse material” will become a now coming term, and I’ll try to keep up with usage.
I’m not terribly concerned with the terms used for this awful subject.
It’s criminal behavior no matter what you (the big You) call it.
It doesn’t make you a farmer. But if you disapprove of what farmers do, you shouldn’t be complicit in it by buying eggs.
This, I agree with.
Of course. I don’t look at sexual material featuring minors regardless of what you call it. I was pushing back at the idea that viewing it made you an abuser. In response to: