Uhh, yeah, that might be because in subsequent wars soldiers were experiencing psychological problems despite not being shelled, so the term no longer applied or described what was at issue.
Wait, what? AFAICT we were discussing whether or not we should insist in use of the formal descriptive terminology vs. the familiar casual colloquial term and whether to exclusion of the latter. I do not know of “special interests” at play here unless we want to define any organization or set of organizations as such.
OTOH, use of the familiar casual colloquial term in casual colloquial environments does not stress me out as long as it is understood what you are talking about. To make reference to my own post, some people already were accusing media that creeped them out of being “child porn” and asking “how can this be legal” long before “CSAM” became a common usage.
I guarantee that should you be charged with assault after punching someone the indictment will say something like “forcibly struck with a closed fist” because it more clearly describes what happened.
By “special interest” I mean a group focused on a specialized topic that has internal jargon that probably isn’t familiar to the general public.
And we see there an example of a descriptive term getting a connotative drift in common usage.
It sure sounds like a euphemism to me rather than an accurate description. The only reason I know what it means is because it was defined in this and another thread. The phrase had no more a clear meaning than child porn.
Which has no clear meaning since pornography that features children by, legal, definition does not exist.
My opinion, for the little it is worth:
Child pornography already carries with it an inherent ick factor because it combined the word child with something sexual, which creates an inherent aversion in decent folk. It’s supposed to sound horrible, I think. Though I will grant that constant exposure to the term might weaken that effect.
I’m not against “Child Sexual Abuse Material” exactly, but it seems less exact. I would not immediately even assume images from that term. It also feels a bit cleaned up to me, like it’s a more formal/scholarly/clinical term come up with by a committee, which kinda detracts from the impact in my opinion.
I do like the idea of pointing out that child porn can only be created by sexual abuse. And perhaps I can just get used to CSAM. But, right now, it just feels a bit whitewashed. Hell, using the acronym only makes that feel worse.
You are making an error in thinking the legal definition is the only one that matters in casual conversation.
That’s good, because it covers more than just images.
That’s a big part of the impetus for change - differentiation of CSAM (and other abusive sexual imagery) from actual porn..
That’s also a completely new concept to me. I have never heard any suggestion that “porn” necessarily requires consent.
Cite?
I’ve never encountered, and I have a hard time imagining, anyone saying “That’s not really pornography because not all of the participants consented.”
Someone remind me, what do we call it when someone is forced to participate in sexual acts without their consent?
Cause I swear it isn’t pornography.
I suppose it’s more of a matter of identifying the “legit” (at least in most of the West) “porn” industry as the purview of consenting adults and claiming the word for that meaning. As the trade phrase “Adult Entertainment” though widely use in many contexts, just has not gained as much traction in popular casual use.
One other example of language pivot we must have all seen is “sex worker” v. “prostitute”. There, the old common term though perfectly understood has attached to it a cultural branding of moral degradation, so the more legalese actually helps those involved claim their rights, and is more expansive.
OTOH the whole notion of NOT using “porn” in describing any non-legit sexually explicit content is going to be a heavier lift outside of the frontline-facing realm. I would not scold anyone for writing “revenge porn” where the meaning is understood. Or for saying “prostitution” or “child porn” in casual conversation if the meaning’s clear from context.
Meanwhile as long as meanings are clear and CSAM is understood to refer to a case where an actual real minor was sexually abused and not just something that creeps us out, it wprks for its purposes.
Although, as Carlin himself acknowledged in the routine, changing the name from “operational exhaustion” to “post-traumatic stress disorder” didn’t add any syllables.
You’ve not read the wikipedia article on pornography, then. Or the academic journal dedicated to pornography, Porn Studies. I mean, if anyone would know what pornography was, it’d be the people studying it for research purposes.
Done.
The latter part is a big selling point for many, as “sex worker” covers strippers, porn actors, dominatrices and others that “prostitute” doesn’t. But the negative connotations of the word are a big one, too.
Note that while scolding may have happened in the original thread, this thread is not about scolding anyone, just explaining the new usage and arguing for it.
That’s what they all say…
Same. Child porn, revenge porn, Deepfake porn… all of these are easily understandable and none of them imply consent. If some academics want to insist otherwise then more power to them but that’s not the common understanding of the term.
I’m familiar with the term CSAM as it comes up when discussing the Deepfake issue but it feels like a term made clinical for the sake of being clinical rather than actually addressing a misunderstanding. I don’t care if anyone uses it but throwing a “Well, actually…” if someone says “child porn” is pretty eye-rolly.
I briefly considered using quotes or adding an “ahem, ahem”, but decided I didn’t actually want to make light of a serious academic research program.
And some people think that’s an issue and contributes to normalizing abuse as just another form of kink. And heaven forbid we kink shame!
This is the problem with America. For so many people, there’s no way you can correct their usage gently enough that they don’t perceive it as “scolding” and as an accusation of fundamental immorality on their part. They blame the “tone” of the person doing the correcting for their reaction, but really they just don’t want to be told that they need to change in any way.