Crystal Hefner and the nonprofit controlling Hefner's documents are in a dispute over the materials, which she contends feature intimate images of women, including possibly "girls who were underage at the time." Hefner's sons dispute the claim.
Porn isn’t something with a victim, it’s something a person gets off to. Sexual abuse material is a picture with an abuse victim whether or not someone is getting off to it, because that’s not the part that matters. It’s not porn because the fact someone gets off to this picture isn’t the important thing about it.
That’s like if you called someone a cannibal was eating “human meat” … Like no, meat is meant to be eaten as food, this is the “murdered remains of a person”.
I don’t even know if you’re being serious at this point. The distinction should be pretty clear.
The distinction you are trying to make is clear, it’s just not an actual current distinction in the English language.
You are inventing a part of the definition of pornography which says, “it does not have a victim” or alternatively, “the important thing about it is that someone gets off to it.” You won’t find that in any dictionary definition of porn, and the continued use of the term “child porn” shows that this is not how people use the word in practice.
So it’s not that you’re merely relating facts about terms. The only explanation is that this is a distinction you feel people ought to make. But compare it to other things:
Revenge porn - another term where we use “porn” but where there is a victim.
Drink driving - the word “drink” turns a term like “driving” which is not immoral or illegal, into something different. The focus is on the activity, not the victim.
Theft - the focus is on the property stolen, not on the victim, its owner.
You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t think that child porn is that bad that is actually is, by instead insisting everyone call it CSAM. It’s not the name that makes them think it’s OK.
Porn isn’t something with a victim, it’s something a person gets off to. Sexual abuse material is a picture with an abuse victim whether or not someone is getting off to it, because that’s not the part that matters. It’s not porn because the fact someone gets off to this picture isn’t the important thing about it.
That’s like if you called someone a cannibal was eating “human meat” … Like no, meat is meant to be eaten as food, this is the “murdered remains of a person”.
I don’t even know if you’re being serious at this point. The distinction should be pretty clear.
Everything you’re saying is idiotically pedantic over distinctions that don’t exist in reality.
The distinction you are trying to make is clear, it’s just not an actual current distinction in the English language.
You are inventing a part of the definition of pornography which says, “it does not have a victim” or alternatively, “the important thing about it is that someone gets off to it.” You won’t find that in any dictionary definition of porn, and the continued use of the term “child porn” shows that this is not how people use the word in practice.
So it’s not that you’re merely relating facts about terms. The only explanation is that this is a distinction you feel people ought to make. But compare it to other things:
You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t think that child porn is that bad that is actually is, by instead insisting everyone call it CSAM. It’s not the name that makes them think it’s OK.