Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
Theory and reality are inseparable in this case. The connection is real, and thus people will continue to use the same words. Child exploitation contains but is not limited to child pornography. Child abuse, the same. What we are talking about is pornography containing children.
You want to destroy the association between kiddy porn and normal porn? Tough shit - it ain't gonna happen. Both are porn, and people know that.
|
People
know that?? Why do people know that? Because they've been told that. Just like you're telling them now. For you to insist that "both are porn" simply reinforces the notion in the eyes of 'society' that we of the
legitimate pornography industry acknowledge, accept and condone those activities.
You're right from a semantic point of view. The definition of the word revolves around sexual arousal, and arguably, pedophiles revel in that kind of content, thus rendering it technically "pornography" under the accepted denotation of the word.
But why should WE accept that? Why shouldn't we strive to change the CONNOTATION of the word? to change what it REPRESENTS in the minds of ordinary people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
Pornography contains snuff, kiddy porn, beast porn, rape vids, etc., and trying to change that meaning is extremely unlikely to be successful. If you want to destroy the association between "us" and "them", focus on terms for us like "the adult industry" and "adult entertainment". Throwing the subgenres out of the main genre doesn't make sense linguistically, and indeed doesn't make practical sense either. Take your cue from language and theory, and you'll see that the much more obvious solution is to emphasize our subgenre, and separate that from the others.
Theory is valuable because it helps us deal with reality in an effective way  |
Words do not have their definitions poured in concrete. Language is fluid and continually evolving. Check your history on language theory and evolution. Words mean whatever people believe them to mean.
You have the power with a simple word to disassociate yourself from those who cause harm to children. Why would you refuse to use that? because the dictionary says so?
If we turn cp into (for example) Child Obscenity, the dictionary will come to reflect that. Not the other way around.