Then your answer to your question,
is yes.
Nope. I wouldn’t trust them to not become abusers given the opportunity. And I’m not going to help present an opportunity with my kids. But that’s still different from them being abusers at that moment.
I don’t know. It’s like saying that we should avoid using the term “Nazi death camp”, because who doesn’t like camping? A phrase is more than the sum of its words.
That’s exactly the point the people who prefer CSAM are making about calling it “child pornography”
Maybe not directly, but if they are in possession of this material and aren’t reporting it to the proper authorities, they are concealing evidence of a crime, which is itself a crime.
It is evidence of child sexual abuse, yes, but the two terms are not synonymous. Imagine, if you will, that law enforcement suspects that someone is abusing children, and (with appropriate warrants etc.) plants hidden cameras to try to catch them in the act. The recordings from those cameras would be evidence of child sexual abuse, but would not be child pornography.
The distinction is that the recordings made by police officers are not made for purposes of sexual gratification, while the stuff that is (and should be) illegal, is. And there’s a word for “material created for the purpose of sexual gratification”. That word is “pornography”.
I’m all in favor of changing terminology to make it more accurate. I’m not convinced that this particular term is more accurate.
Cite? Certainly the modern notion is that pornography should include consent. Likewise, the modern notion is that driving should include wearing a seatbelt and using turn signals. But nobody claims that a person who’s not wearing a seatbelt and turns without signaling shouldn’t be said to be “driving”.
Right. We agree that it’s reprehensible and illegal. “Abuser” isn’t an accurate word for them though.
Again, I said that “child porn” or “kiddie porn” carried a certain weight. I’ve never heard anyone accused of being into that and it NOT meaning “You’re the lowest class of garbage”. I was asked if “Child sex abuser” didn’t also have weight, and it does, but it’s also inaccurate. Not just technically inaccurate but fully inaccurate in a way that invites dismissing the accusation.
Wouldn’t an audio recording of a victim or an abuser describing abuse also be considered evidence of child sexual abuse? Or a transcript, for that matter?
Well. Color me very surprised at the level of pushback here.
Rather than continue to rehash the circular disagreement, I’ll offer for consideration and comparison another comparable term that is disfavored by experts for similar reasons: “child prostitution.” There are arguments, which I find compelling, that referring to a “child prostitute” implicitly skews our subconscious perception of the situation, in that it reduces the child to the role that has been forced upon them while failing to acknowledge the actual party responsible. (Not to mention the moral stigma attached to the “prostitute” label.) And for these reasons, it’s argued that instead of “child prostitution,” the preferable term should be “commercial sexual exploitation of children,” or similar formulations which clearly connote the victimization of the child by a different active party.
Considering the resistance to reconsidering the old terminology already demonstrated in the thread, I don’t expect this parallel example to get much traction either. But I genuinely believe that the words one uses to think about a thing affect the way one thinks about it, and as I said above, I wholeheartedly support the more considered language.
That feels like a stronger case to me. I’d probably go with “sexual trafficking of children”.
I appreciate the sentiment, and you have valid points, but I still believe that replacing two words with five creates a verbal mush that makes readers’ eyes glaze over and creates and effect opposite to that intended. It may sound callous, but an important part of fighting evil is marketing - which includes calling bad things by short, snappy bad names that people will remember and react to. “Child prostitution”, with all of its problems, is an evocative term; “commercial sexual exploitation of children” is not.
Can we at least agree that the acronym “CSAM” is a terrible term? If the intent is to emphasize how bad it is, well, an acronym doesn’t do that at all.
“That guy was caught with CSAM on his computer!”
See Sam do what?
If organizations like RAINN want to use CSAM in their literature then sure. In a formal setting like that, I think it’s… fine… if a bit overly clinical and feeling like a term created by committee. But I’m not opposed to them using it. If they want every else to use it in lieu of existing terms, I don’t think the arguments hold up well enough to replace a perfectly functional and understood term with a clunky acronym or lengthy sterile phrase.
It seems to me—speaking as a layman who doesn’t often talk or think about such things—that the problem with calling it “commercial sexual exploitation of children” instead of “child prostitution” is very similar to the problem with the term “child sexual abuse material” instead of “child pornography”: It’s harder for someone who doesn’t already know what you’re referring to to know what you’re referring to.
Both “commercial sexual exploitation of children” and “child sexual abuse material” seem to me to be more vague and general. And they’re not euphemisms, per se, but they do give me the impression of dancing around something rather than coming right out and saying what it is.
I find myself sympathetic with both those arguing that the usual terms are to some extent problematic, and those arguing that the newer terms sound too clinical and detached.
I don’t have any objection to the term CSAM, but the whole, “You can’t call it pornography, because pornography is consensual,” feels like a very No-True-Scotsman defense of porn. There’s a lot of other kinds of bad pornography out there: what’s the neologism for revenge porn, or deepfake porn, or “adult with an abusive partner making them do it” porn?
They seem quite specific to me, the sort of language you might expect to be used by cops, social workers, and lawyers in their professional capacity. Coming from an average person in the course of normal everyday conversation, they sound weird and stilted.
Part of the problem is that they’re not specific. Like, there was a poster for one of the Harry Potter movies, from when the three main actors were still minors. The poster, as most posters do, featured a picture of the main characters. And someone at the studio had edited the poster to make Emma Watson’s breasts appear larger than they actually were.
If someone told me that that editing was commercial sexual exploitation of a minor, I wouldn’t say that they were wrong. And certainly that edit was creepy. But it’s also not illegal.
I agree but the person on the other side may bite the bullet and say those things should be referred to by another name that doesn’t include the word “porn” as well. I personally find this trend concerning language to be tiresome, obfuscatory and self congratulatory without doing any actual tangible good whatsoever. George Carlin had a great bit about it in the 1990s.
Child sexual abuse material isn’t a euphemism, but abbreviating it to CSAM pretty much is. The insurance company i used to work for had a small team estimating our “SAM” liability. That stood for sexual abuse and molestation. (And it was our liability because we were an insurance company, and had insured schools and religious groups that had to pay liability for that stuff, and we, their insurer, picked up a lot of the tab.) Anyway, I’m 100% certain that the team was referred to as the SAM team because that was a euphemism and didn’t make people say awkward words out loud in the hallway, etc.