Taking the pornography out of CP/KP
 

So, I was reading an entry in SexyScribe's blog and while this was not the primary point of her entry, it is the one that made me react the most.

Why is that? What can we do about it? Anything?

I think it is a great question. Discuss.

Hard to shove the press buzzword back into the dictionary to choose another.

So you operate under the theory that if it is too hard you shouldn't bother trying?

I think putting the two nouns "child" & "obscenity" just don't illicit the same prescribed response as putting "child" & "pornography" together. The press makes money trying to grab the greatest reaction from the largest group possible and the latter two nouns seem to be doing just want they want.

Thanks baddog. :)

AFS... I agree. I think erasing a buzzword from the current lingo will prove extremely hard to do. Once a word takes hold in the current lexicon and in people's minds, you can't take it away from them.

But.. you *can* replace it with a new word. And you *can* reshape the definition of a word until it loses its original meaning to a newer one.

psili... Exactly. The media's cashing in on the sensationalism of the word because of what it's come to represent. But it doesn't have to stay that way. Someone along the way decided to call it pornography, and it stuck. If someone else decides to call it obscenity, rather than pornography, if it happens often enough, and from enough credible sources, it will eventually replace the current buzzword. If cp came to be known as co, the media simply would pick up on that new phrase and splash that across their headlines.

Good Find BD great point too...

TOM

This should about sum up my viewpoint)>:


2HP

great post :thumbsup




__

CO is fucking disgusting! CO is the new CP... I think it is a great idea.

don't think it will ever happen.

because what people fail to realize is that for years "pornography" was illegal.
pornography

n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire

used to be that something had to have literary or artistic value in order not to be found obscene, which is why most films had stories and bad acting.

Things have channged over the last 20 years, pornography has become a mmore widely accepted word for what we do.

Regardless the definition still stands. Pornography is something that has no literary or artistic value, which fits the definition of "child pornography."

I think that pornography being niduty and sexual act depictions is what they chose to put them together. Even though I agree, it will be an uphill fight to change what is so well put out.

Good point. I'll be a soldier in your war by correcting people who don't call it obsenity.

quite frankly, ASACP is in the position to educate state and federal government and law enforcement that the adult biz does not equate to CP, despite what AG Gonzales and Oprah says... and ASACP does.

but, the ignorance of what ASACP does for the better of the biz (and its certainy for not lack of trying despite all the PR and news releases that Joan does), is overshadowed by the stone throwing, the drive by pot shots, the ignorance again, and the general apathy (and sometimes stupidity) that rears itself when not stuck in the sand.

despite some of the drama that ASACP gets drawn into, there is a lot of good that it does and there are alot of great sponsors and members who provide financial support in making a proof-positive difference.

ASACP has the database of reported CP websites to prove, emperically, that the adult online entertainment biz is not part of CP. And yes, Joan is trying every chance she can to correct Oprah and AG Gonzales.


Fight the Flames!

The press doesn't make money via reactions.

The press makes money via ad dollars, which come from readership/viewership. If you think that readership/viewership increases via two page stories about CP or features on CP, your sorely mistaken.

The subject makes any sane reader/viewer uncomfortable and uncomfortable people reading your paper ARE not likely to subscribe and uncomfortable viewers are not likely to watch again.


Outside of Denver (where people were covering a trial) or LA -- ever hear a peep about the 2257 changes?


I've written 5 different letters to the Public Editor of the Chicago Tribune and gotten the same response every time.

Most people have come to associate the word "pornography" with various forms of sexual acts, when in fact, the word comes from Greek origins meaning "writing about prostitutes".

Seems the word has already evolved from its orginal definition... which is what language does according to common usage.


From dictionary.com:

por·nog·ra·phy
n.

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: ?Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era? (Morris Dickstein).


[French pornographie, from pornographe, pornographer, from Late Greek pornographos, writing about prostitutes : porn, prostitute; see per-5 in Indo-European Roots + graphein, to write; see -graphy.]


Language is constantly evolving to reflect the changes in the world.
*People* sway the tide of language's evolution by using or discarding words.

Intelligent words from one of the smartest women I have met.

Great read BadDog. Now I have to go and hit on SexyScribe :-)

Child Exploitation would work for both the press and pornographers.

I disagree.

Readership/viewship is generated via (mostly) bad news, which can be CP, terrorism, the local gas station getting robbed, 10 family ghetto house fire, whatever the fuck... people are hungry for bad news in general, mainly so they can feel better about their own crappy/happy life.

Most news written and covered is not exactly designed to make people 'comfortable'.

Wars, sex scandals, porn, drugs, deaths, 'unthinkable crimes', blah blah, all the big stories will draw more people to watch / read the news, which will end up equating to more ads $ generated.

... funny there's ANY question here what motivates the Press to give attention, or to deny it...

[shakes head]

regardless...

...are we agreed)>-- do we like the word "pornography")>-- are we prepared to do the work, to take it back, to give it meaning of OUR choosing --<: -- ?

...your opinions, please -- :)

2HP

Yup, that's a good one, too. :thumbsup

Calling it CP only validates that it IS pornography.

Let's call a spade a spade.

It's child obscenity, or child exploitation, (or any other word that more accurately denotes what we're referring to). But it is NOT pornography.

Correction... it's ONLY considered pornography to the people who derive pleasure from it.

Now... do we really want to be lumped in to THAT category?

Search for national papers that pick up the headlines. Search for leads on national shows on DateLine, NightLine, etc.

You're wrong on this one...

Death, distruction, and drugs may tune people in, but CP make people uncomfortable and makes them feel like shit.


Not a way to add viewership/readership....

Uhm, no. It is child pornography. It is called child pornography because it is a type of pornogrpahy. It doesn't matter who derives the pleasure from it, it's intent is to derive sexual pleasure from the viewer, and therefore it is pornographic.

That's like saying Bukkake isn't pornographic because it's rather disturbing and a lot of people wouldn't derive any pleasure from it. Call a spade a spade, indeed. Child pornography is a type of pornography, and that is why the term will persist.

What annoys me is the way that it is portrayed as if it were part of the regular pornography business, but this will be the case regardless of what name it is given. It's rather naive to think otherwise, in my opinion.

Regardless of the disturbing factor, bukkake and other genres of pornographic content are performed by consenting adults, or at least, adults who have the ability to consent.

Situations that involve children, minors, and those unable to form consent are exploitive. Not the same.

And, as I mentioned.. it WOULD be considered pornographic by those who derive pleasure from it. But by calling yourself a pornographer, AND calling CP "pornography" you're (albeit perhaps unwillingly) making yourself part of that group. Doesn't matter if *you* know the difference, the fact is that general society doesn't.

What annoys you is the way it's "portrayed as if it were part of the regular pornography business" and yet you argue about changing the usage of the word? Who do you think is going to portray it differently for you?

It's naive to think that such a change would be easy.
It's also naive to think that we don't have the power to make the change occur.

I see what you're saying about consent and whatnot, and how child porn differs from porn involving consenting adults. But there is one blindingly obvious similarity; the intent is to arouse the viewer. They are both types of pornography.

I'll tell you the one thing i like about your idea to call it Child Exploitation/Violation or something along those lines. It would sort of increase the scope of what it would include. Child pornography is unfortunately overly specific. A lot of stuff that i personally feel should be considered pornographic is not, but who knows, maybe it would be considered exploitation.

to me 'pornopgraphy' is a very broad descriptor that describes content of a sexual nature.

'snuff films' are pornographic just like a playboy magazine is pornographic, and everything in between.

'child porn' is a sub-genre.

trying to alter the definition to mean its 'consenting sex for adults' is limiting. what about fiction writing? there are no "consenting adults" other than what the author says they are.

to jack's point, 'pornography' can be a not so negative word, to relate to healthly, stimuating sexual (mind, body, spirit) experiences... but no matter the case, you can choose to define what the word means to you, but the real issue is how the word is applied.. much like how words are applied in racist remarks.

at every point that pornography as a whole is associated with child pornography, is where the active correction is needed.

how many wrote to oprah to complain about her recent show when she made the remark that equated porn with CP? (see: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...4&page=1&pp=50)

Joan at ASACP certainly was active on that issue in trying to reach Oprah to help educate her on the difference. many others said they wrote in their letters.

one of baddog's opening questions was what can be done about it?

this is exactly one of the missions of ASACP.... it is the answer to WHO is going to do WHAT about CP.

FSC is off on other issues and has no focus on this point from what i can tell.

You have brought up some great points, but without action and focus, it's philosophical musings in the shadow of obscenity charges and prosecutions.

The "right" that so many feel that they have to distribute 'pornography' is quickly being challenged by the morality groups, pointing to spam, typo-domains, seo trickery, easy access for children to inadvertanty see naked people having sex,etc.

it is about 'business practices' and unpopular practices like having.....

- no graphic images on tours

- having the equivalent of a black wrapper on the front of your site that has no nudie pics

- warnings that specifically state the sexual material that is inside, labelling with ICRA so that parents could block if they wanted, blocking sidedoors into your site from search engines so no inadvertant clicking by children OR adults

- no spamming or allowing affiliates to spam, unless it was an adult that opt-in for adult-specific emails

- being selective to what affiliates you let into your program


.....that will make a difference.


If these 'business practices" were in place, there would be less ammo that conservatives could have in being able to prove that 'pornographers' were 'irresponsible'.

the answer that will be FORCED on this community will be .XXX

That is the "voluntary" REGULATION that will occur.

It's one thing to fight and knockdown .XXX, but to not offer some middle ground, is only asking for things like COPA v3.0, new 2257, obscenity laws,etc,etc,etc.

I have seen some programs actually do the things that i have described above, and they still are able to make $$$.

But like with anything, those that adapt to the changing times will survive, those that are still partying like it was 1999, will be the ones that miss the evolution of the biz.



Fight the Cliff Notes!

It pains me to have to agree with you, but I do. The current, accepted definition of pornography involves the arousal of sexual desires... so, you're right. In that case, I'll be more specific.. what I'm referring to is legitimate pornography. i.e. pornography that, at its very least, does not defy the consent laws or trash anyone's human rights. i.e. the type of pornography that we represent here on the boards.

Thank you. :)
Taking the pornography out of cp (to borrow baddog's title :) ) does 2 things:

1. It helps to define a category of content (child obscenity/exploitation) that we as an industry can condemn. As it stands now, the finger that we're pointing at cp only points straight back to us. A different name for the content we all despise would distance it from us, psychologically, emotionally, symbolically.... even in the search engines!

2. It allows us -pornographers- to reclaim the word for our industry. It allows us to redefine the meaning that the word holds in the minds of the masses. Pornography is never going to be embraced by the masses but we can make strides towards at least separating ourselves from the criminals who prey on children.

Educating the media, personalities and politicans that Porn does not equal Child Porn, and that they are two different things would be the best thing for this industry.

That cannot be done without having a successful trade organization. Which we do not and which we never will. History has proven that.

The best chance would be ASACP. However, if in the six or seven or eight years they have been around and talking to government officials and the media it has not happened, it probably won't happen.

A sub-genre???!!!

Are you, then, in favor of lumping the sexually exploitive acts committed upon children with everything else pornographic??

It seems to me, the simplest, clearest, easiest way to erase EVERY point that pornography is associated with cp.. is simply to STOP CALLING IT PORNOGRAPHY. There's your active correction! Why would you want to make it more complicated and convoluted than that?

What can be done about it? Seems to me that I gave my answer in the quote he took from my blog. A LOT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT, and we don't need ASACP or FSC or GOD. It's a word. That's all it is. It's a word that can mean what we make it mean. It doesn't require mobilization, and it doesn't require action and OR focus. It doesn't even require any sponsorship or superhuman effort from anyone. It just requires you to choose a different word.

Are you trying to tell me that's too hard for you to do?



I'm not talking about the right to produce/distribute/consume porn, so the rest of this is irrelevant.

cp is not pornography... it is VIOLENT ABUSE!

exploitation doesn't even cut it for me personally. It reminds me of those wacko housewives who make their little girls wear shit loads of makeup and do shirley temple acts while wearing the shortest frilly skirts know to man...

I really don't know what I'm talking about here because I cannot fathom fondling and raping children as being arousing whatsoever. I do not believe with the billions of people buying porn memberships that this kind of content really consists of any significant amount of viewers that are looking to do a little harmless masturbation.

People who want to view or search for children in sexual or erotic scenarios are sick sick bastards. Period.

CP is not sexy... it is a crime and it is a worse form of abuse that beating the shit out of a child with a baseball bat.

:2 cents:

I was just wondering . . . is this the first intelligent conversation on GFY that did not resort to name calling, flaming, and an overwhelming presence of trolls?

hmmm, I never thought of Playboy as being pornographic. Not any more than National Geographic anyway

We really need to fight that line of thought. I think that is the original point of SexyScribe's blog and my post.

While I agree that the rhetoric of the verbage here is perjorative, technically the definition of pornography is "any sexually explicit writing and/or picture intended to arouse sexual desire". Eventhough any mentally healthy individual wouldn't consider it pornography, it WAS intended to arose sexual desire and is therefore pornography.

Someone dared suggest above that the commonality of "arousal" situates [new term TBD] within the spectrum of "pornography".

It does NOT.

Some folks are fond of eating shit, that doesn't make it food.


Well enough said to require no paraphrase here:
The Law enlarges with the passage of time. This means that, as a society gets older and more "advanced", it becomes more experienced and discovers new areas where it decides the Law should be.

Besides exhibiting a generally expansive trend, the Law, in basic opinion and and in applied detail, will also generally follow the Will of the People. As we know to be the case in this country, and elsewhere, both at present and throughout history, the Law and morality may not always agree. But, since providing a moral imperative is an effective way to influence Law Makers, those who would, for their own reasons, want to bring about the criminalization of an activity not innately immoral will produce a moral argument in support of their position. This is why the argument for keeping marijuana illegal relates not to any direct attributes of marijuana, but to the idea that marijuana use pre-disposes those who use it to acts which are innately immoral (like robbing convenience stores) and to acts that are not innately immoral, but which have been well enough classified as immoral (like pre-marital sex) -- usually by the same people.

Let us not forget that both the Law and the "Will of the People" have, in the past, lead us down some tragic and regrettable paths. Slavery. Let us remember, also that -- even against such entrenched dogma and cultural habituation as supported slavery for hundreds of years, the persistence, eloquence and timeliness of the Abolitionist Outcry did prevail, and that even in an America steeped in immorality, a moral law was ratified. Of course it helped that the Abolitionist effort included a number of legal scholars and a number of exceptionally talented PR people. In the end, you might say the Abolitionist victory owed to equal parts being right and being smart

To know what is important for us at this moment in our battle for continuing legality, and to discern the correct strategy at this time, all you have to do is think like a general -- back away from the immediacies at hand (2257, .XXX etc.) and take a perspective of the totality of the conflict.

If you do that, you will see that what is at stake right now are a number of critical DEFINITIONS and CLASSIFICATIONS, both legally and morally. It is currently a war of meaning, and if we fail to assert the right SELF-DESCRIPTIONS we will see ourselves described by others in ways that suit their agenda.

The "front line" is anywhere there is a lack of clarity as regards what we do and how we do it. If you go there, you will very likely discover that the Enemy is there or has been there recently. There will be some reversal work to do. Some of the anti-porn bias we'll encounter is not new, merely long-un-addressed by us, and in some cases, even contributed to by us. If it is our desire to remain a legitimate industry, we should do all we can to appear that way now. Though it is a part of our lore, the trappings of illegality or even the style of illegality which a number of us still cling to, don't help the cause. It might just be marketing to you, but it's a subtle, tacit "I am a criminal." to many who can only form their impressions of us and of our business from what they see.

The perception of any connection between our lawful business and an atrocious criminal depravity must be fought aggressively and vocally hereforward. We can suffer no equivocations or technicalities on this point -- no gray. I am concerned that in our desire to be of assistance to law enforcement, we have permitted a misunderstanding to take root. Law enforcement concerned with [new term TBD] should have been working shoulder-to-shoulder with this industry, availing themselves of our expertise. We should be standing with Law Enforcement, helping to point out the bad guys Instead, we have gone down a path of murky distinctions and undefended defintions, and now find ourselves the target of legal efforts to eliminate [new term TBD], when there is NO [new term TBD] here! Does no one find that outrageous? I do.

I am also concerned about the role of the ASACP in all this. An advocacy group that, for its very raison d'etre, begins every sentence it offers on our behalf with an implicit apology, is no advocate. For having accepted the responsibility of removing [new term TBD] from our midst, we have (not in so many words) admitted that it's here, when it's not.

We have allowed ourselves to be manipulated into culpability by those who rightly and righteously seek justice against criminals. It seems, now, that this has happened because we were not properly guarding our definitions. I stronly suggest we start. I am a proud pornographer.




2HP

this thread wouldn't be complete without a pic of Skufty's balls

http://www.hjorleifson.com/skufty/balls.jpg

Skufty can suck my salty balls.

this reminds me of how people abuse the word pedophile to describe anyone that might admit attraction to 15-17 yo girls. Real pedophiles DONT like teenage girls. By definition its attraction to pre-pubescents.

This is one of the oddest little threads I have ever seen.

The reason that there is a connection in the words is because there actually IS a connection between normal pornography and child pornography. Materials depicting sexually explicit acts made for the purpose of sexual gratification are pornography, period.

Attempts to change language in ways like this are both futile and absurd. Just look at the word fucking: whether you fuck a consenting adult woman, a prostitute, a dog, a fresh apple pie, a 2 year old, a corpse, a tied up lesbian or the Lord Jesus Christ himself, it's still fucking. It can be normal, obscene, abusive, delightful, harmful, bizarre, forced, consensual, disgusting, deranged, illegal or just plain boring. Still, it's fucking and nothing else.

Someone said in this thread that child pornography is a subgenre of pornography, and indeed it is. It is important to point out, however, that what we do is also a subgenre of pornography: pornography which only contains consenting adults.

Should butchers object because the meat a cannibal serial killer strips from his victims and eats is also called meat?