Maybe part of the pushback is precisely because it’s a ham fisted way to tell us how to think about it. “Don’t think about it your way, think about it our way.”
Something I already noted, thanks.
Already given.
And hence the drive is to use language that reinforces that imperative. So you do get it.
It’s exactly the same case.
It’s partially a defence of porn, but I wouldn’t say it was a NTS. Any more than, say, wanting to differentiate flashing from nudism is a NTS argument.
I’ve already mentioned one preferred term for it in this thread…image-based abuse.
Deepfake porn: Non-consensual synthetic intimate imagery
“adult with an abusive partner making them do it” - you mean depictions of rape? That’s rape. You mean kinda-but-not-really-consensual professional porn? Non-consensual sexual imagery would cover it.
Now, for our generation. My kids’ generation are using “CSAM” with regularity. Because it’s way easier to text, no doubt.
I know it’s likely different for a lot of America, but my kids were definitely taught about it as part of online safety classes at school.
Like I said way at the beginning
I’m not really concerned about the wider discourse, because this change is already happening. This thread was just to inform you of that it wasn’t some idiosyncrasy of one poster.
Honestly it just seems daft for anyone to argue with the professionals here; this isn’t a case of some loony fringe insisting on flowery terminology out of some misplaced sense of political correctness, these are experts defining a term for reasons they have undoubtedly thought through better than any of us. It makes no sense for laypeople to be asserting that the thing they’re more familiar with, is somehow better.
And just from this layperson’s point of view, there definitely have been cases in the past where terminology ‘softens’ the import of the actions - for example calling people ‘Kiddie Diddlers’, whilst not generally ambiguous, does not sound so serious a thing as, say, ‘Child Sexual Offender’.
I think “Kiddie Diddler” is exceptionally offensive if directed towards the offender. It is an intentional, and deserved insult. “Child Sexual.Offender” is a descriptive.
Each has their place, one outside a bar just after closing time, the other in civilised society.
CSAM — child sexual abuse materials .
I personally prefer to use “child pornography” to describe the genre, but “child sexual abuse” is totally.on target. I mean, hell, there is “adult sexual abuse” porn when images/video that are taken or shared without consent exist.
I’ve really only encountered it mostly used by comedians. There’s no doubt what it means of course.
I come from a British cultural background, so your experience/culture is probably slightly different. I mean, my male friends all refer to each other by a four letter word begining in “c” that is hugely offensive in the USA.
I think, perhaps, the most offensive term would be the British prison term “nonce” - which I knew as a very serious insult until I learned cryptography… where it means something very different.
In the UK, “nonce” refers to a child sex offender, including pornographers. In cryptography, it is (usually) a random number to ensure encryption is really hard to decrypt without knowledge of that number.
Pretty sure Mangetout is actually way more British than you, scud.
Ha, us colonials pride ourselves on being more British than the British!
And having lived amongst them in London… it is true.
I think part of the reason it rubs me the wrong way is that it presumes to tell me how I already think. “You shouldn’t refer to it as ‘child pornography’ because those words have these connotations and will make you think about it in this way…” Well, no, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t have those connotations for me. That’s not what it means to me, or what it makes me think.
Yeah, I may not be aware of all my unconscious biases and associations, but I have a better idea about what’s going on inside my own head than some stranger does.
And yeah, I realize it’s not just about me, but about everyone, and how people in general think. But that makes me wonder how they know how people in general think. Is this based on sound psychological research, or just pulled out of somebody’s ass, or what?
Actually, it’s about the victims, first and foremost.
Victims like Alicia Kozak:
The fight continues for Alicia, on multiple fronts. Most recently, she has prevailed in her efforts to get the term ‘child pornography’ changed to ‘child sexual abuse material’ (CSAM) and ‘child sexual abuse imagery’ (CSAI). “This is not pornography,” she says emphatically. “These are crime scene images and videos of children being sexually abused.”
I think you’re using “about” in a different sense from how I used the word. I meant “it’s not just about how I think about the words, it’s about how everyone thinks about the words.”
It’s not.
“Pornography” doesn’t blame the victim, the way “prostitute” does. And “sexual trafficking” is widely understood among people i might talk to, in a way that “child sexual abuse materials” is not. Great for you that you live in a place where “CSAM” means something to others. You live thousands of miles away from me, and our dialects are not identical.
And i continue to think that the connotations of “pornography” must be more strongly negative in the US than in the rest of the English-speaking world.
Also,
I’ve just read that article. It says the definition of pornography is contentious and that academics like to define it as requiring the consent of all involved. But it also refers to child pornography, revenge porn, etc. The article itself clearly does not restrict the word to cases where consent is present. It should be clear reading the article that the intended audience of that article does not assume consent when reading the word “pornography”. It defines the word as more or less “media intended to generate sexual arousal”.
You seem okay using the word “video” to refer to something that’s also a crime. There’s no linguistic reason to say that there’s no intersection between pornography and criminal activity. As mentioned above, in my childhood, the act of distributing pornography was generally a crime. Sex-positive Americans are still working on legitimizing the more consensual forms of pornography, frankly.
A lot of the pushback that seems to surprise non-Americans comes from the novelty of the phrase here. And that its meaning isn’t completely obvious. As i said above, if I’d come across the term without context, i would have read it as materials used to abuse children, not as materials created by abusing children.
So .. give it a few years, and perhaps most of us will be happy to use a term that has become understood.
Anyway, this has been an informative thread.
And I meant it should be about how the victims think about the words.
It kind of does - just ask the actual survivors like Alicia Kozak how they feel about it
This feels exactly like a rehash of the recent deepfake thread, where I showed how the actual victims of the sexual violence in question feel about what happened to them, and some posters still couldn’t bring themselves to actually respect the voices of the victims by admitting they were really violated.
Because, like this board, many are slow to catch up.
Of course not. It’s a Wiki. BUT it makes it clear which way the actual researchers and organizations who deal with this every day are leaning.
Sure, whyever not?
Once again - this isn’t about linguistic accuracy, or any potential confusion, or any other strawman.
It’s about centering the victims of the abuse, listening to their voices, not about some linguistic crusade.
Pornography was a crime in South Africa for far, far longer than in America. And by “porn”, I’m including Playboy-style softcore stuff. South Africa was draconian on sex. Americans have nothing to teach us about puritan attitudes towards sex.
Wouldn’t you rather be an early adopter? It’s what many victims would want, after all.
The question in that thread was about banning the media and the impact the actual act had on the victims. It wasn’t dithering about whether to call the harmful media Deepfakes or AI nudes or Nonconsensual Synthetic Intimate Imagery or AI-Generated Explicit Content or some other term.
I didn’t say they were the same question.
The “rehash” here is the act of ignoring what actual victims have to say. That’s the same in both threads.
I suppose it could be argued that the first one will leave people wondering unless someone defines it for them first. But TBF that’s also the case with “revenge porn”. In neither case does the phrase directly say “exposing to outsiders erotic imagery that was not meant to be shared, as a way to hurt the other party”.
So in summation: Languaging is hard. Walking upright and chipping rocks was the easy part in comparison.
Plus it avoids uncomfortable search coincidences – much the way back in the Pleistocene we used to type “pr0n”.
Me, I’m happy when people come around to a better way of understanding things, whether or not it took them longer for them or for me.
And here we risk drifting from accuracy of language to a debate on who should define the terms of discourse. Don’t know if we want to go there in this thread.
Re: George Carlin’s “soft language” routine, Adam Gopnik made the case on RadioLab that Carlin got it backwards:
ADAM GOPNIK: … We actually have more of an apparatus to help people with PTSD than they did in 1915 to help guys with shell shock. The reason the word gets more abstract is exactly because you have a much more complicated abstract system of support. …. The initial thing was oh, these guys are being driven crazy because the shells are exploding all around them on the Western Front.
SOREN: Gopnik says the thinking was, you know, it was temporary. The shell goes off. It explodes in a moment. They have a moment of shock and they need a moment of rest, and then they can go back in. But by World War II, we were thinking that’s not quite right.
ADAM GOPNIK: It’s not just shells exploding, right? It’s the whole experience of battle.
SOREN: It’s all the shooting and the death and the fear.
ADAM GOPNIK: So it becomes ‘battle fatigue’. You’re trying to generalize it. You’re trying to make it richer. That’s the concept.
…
SOREN: Then around Vietnam, he says, we realized you don’t just see this on the battlefield, you see it with guys who aren’t necessarily directly involved in battle.
ADAM GOPNIK: Right.
SOREN: And so the question became …
ADAM GOPNIK: What’s the source of it? It’s—you say well, it’s nervous exhaustion. You say the human nervous system can only take it for so long, and then everybody’s nervous system shuts down.
SOREN: Hence the term ‘operational exhaustion.’
ADAM GOPNIK: Now that’s an example again where you’re trying to enrich it. You’re saying the guys aren’t cowards, they’re not in a state of shock. They’re behaving the way all human beings do. And then you get more concerned about them, and you say the real problem isn’t their—just their experience on the battlefield, the problem is is that they’re in a constant state of disorder, because it lingers on long after you think it’s over. You can’t just get these guys into a hospital for six months and think they’re going to be better. They are permanently—they have post-traumatic shock. And then once you have a whole apparatus to deal with it, then it becomes PTSD. My point is just that it’s perfectly possible that the language of euphemism grows and becomes more abstract as—as people actually are becoming more empathetic to the people who suffer from it.
Or maybe its because a hundred years have passed and we’re better at psychiatry in general. I’ve just saying: it’s still called “shell shock” in Hebrew (or more specifically, helem krav, or “battle shock”), and I don’t think the treatment apparatus we have here is inferior to the one you have in the U.S.
I’ll also be happy if they did it eventually.
I’d be happier if some of them didn’t fight it tooth and nail, especially with specious arguments, until then, though.
I’m not trying to convince anyone NOT to use CSAM if they want so I don’t really need to craft a great argument for why you shouldn’t. It’s just that the arguments for why I should have been ineffectual ones. We’ve gone from a pretty weak semantic assertion that “pornography implies consent” to abandoning that line for a straight-on Appeal to Emotion.
This reminds me of Latinx. Created by perfectly sincere people who felt strongly about it, embraced and promoted by academic experts and… hated by everyone else where it ultimately probably did more harm than good. I’m not saying that “CSAM” is harmful as such but well-meaning people and experts don’t always get it right when trying to rapidly relabel terms no one else had an issue with.