No qualification - just 'no'?
Just no. Because as stated, it's not. Add some qualifications of your own, and
maybe. But you didn't provide any, and so without any, yes, it's a simple no.
Is that because it implicates (by the spirit rather than the letter) Pornhub et al?
No, it's got nothing to do with online porn specifically. It's a no because it leads to absurdities. For example, suppose two parents start having sex in the middle of the night, and they forget to lock their bedroom door. The six year old child wakes up in the middle of the night from a nightmare, and wanders into their bedroom, and sees them having sex for a moment before they realize the child entered and stop.
Have they sexually abused their own child? No, they have not. That's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid. It fits your definition, but that's because it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid definition of sexual abuse.
A 17 year old growing up in a society that has normalized anything goes porn is not the same as one growing up in one that hasn't.
Special pleading. No. They may be different, but you have neither specified how nor why that difference is relevant to my hypothetical. Are you seriously claiming that in the scenario I gave, the first teen sexually abused the second teen?
That we are forced to treat children differently now because of this is evident from Ian Critchley's (National Police Chiefs' Council lead for child protection) statement
(The Guardian Feb 2024) that he had no intention to “criminalise a whole generation of young people."
Then perhaps they shouldn't have made laws which turn a whole generation of young people into criminals. It's not a good defense of a law to say it won't be strictly enforced.
He goes on:
“The increased use of smart devices by young people, the access to harmful material [and] to violent pornography, has become normalised now in the behaviour of young people. Ultimately, we have tech companies who are making billions of pounds, who are influencing the behaviour of young people – who are putting profit before the impact that this is having on society.”
Yet again more appeals to authority, more declarations without data. Why do you think that's going to change anyone's mind?
Extraordinary. Perhaps you could explain why you think so before I start fulminating?
Because anywhere in the home is a place that a child could come across it. This is basically saying that any parent who has porn or adult toys in their house is committing sexual assault just by having it. And note that this applies even if the child never comes across them.
Oh, and also keep in mind that there's no distinction between a muscle massager and a sex toy, because they're the same thing. Fulminate away, but your definition of sexual assault is stupid. And that last bit about sex toys doesn't even derive from your CEOP source.
You are not willing to do this, but you are willing to watch others do so in porn:
What's your point? Are you trying to accuse me of hypocrisy? It won't work. I'm not willing to do proximity wingsuit flying either, but I'm willing to
watch other people do it.
Are you saying that you think there is a clear distinction between seeing real (in the flesh) sex and seeing porn sex?
No. I'm saying there's a clear distinction between community dinner theater and Broadway.
God damn, but you're getting dishonest in your arguments.