A very serious mistake by the headlines that claim that children between 7 and 10 years old self-generated images of sexual abuse

Today, different media have echoed the results published by the Internet Watch Foundation in relation to the data on online sexual abuse of minors.  As promoters of the CSAS Science and Friendship Association (Survivors of sexual abuse of minors and people who support us) based on the highest-level scientific findings for its prevention and action, we have detected:

1) That headlines have been published reproducing the speeches of the sexual aggressors of minors, ignoring key information that the report itself makes.

2) That there is an urgent need for a higher level of scientific analysis based on social impact and that the media include it as the main source to contribute to the prevention of abuses and not the other way around,

On the first point, it should be clarified that headlines such as «Children seek acceptance by exhibiting themselves» or «Children self-generated images of sexual abuse» reproduce the discourse of sexual aggressors of children and also do not include what the report itself says, in addition to ignoring the scientific evidence that does protect victims and survivors.

Let’s go step by step clarifying;

1. In the report published by IWF itself, it does not say at any time that minors self-generate images for social acceptance. Moreover, they include the following notes, that these self-generated images come from situations of abuse, extortion, manipulation, etc.:

In some cases, children are groomed, deceived or extorted into producing and sharing a sexual image or video of themselves by someone who is not physically present in the room with the child. Sometimes children are completely unaware they are being recorded and that there is then an image or video of them being shared by abusers.

 On the other hand, the report itself makes a terminological clarification, that the very concept of «self-generated» child sexual abuse is inappropriate because it leads to the revictimization of the victims as is effectively happening in the media that are collecting this news, and it is sought that a better term can be found because the foundation itself does not recognize that it is not appropriate.

A note on terminology:

We regard the term ‘self-generated’ child sexual abuse as an inadequate and potentially misleading term which does not fully encompass the full range of factors often present within this imagery, and which appears to place the blame with the victim themselves. Children are not responsible for their own sexual abuse. Until a better term is found, however, we will continue to use the term ‘self-generated’ as, within the online safety and law enforcement sectors, this is well recognised.

The term self-generated images is wrong, but given science, they should be called images created under sexual assault of minors or images created under sexual abuse.

2. Now we are going to the second point, about the urgency of analysing the data using the science of the highest level and social impact.

When you dig deeper into reading the report, when you go to how the IWF classifies images, the report says:

1. Category A is defined as: Images involving penetrative sexual activity; images involving sexual activity with an animal, or sadism.
2. Category B: Images that involve non-penetrative sexual activity.
3. Category C: Other indecent images that do not belong to categories A or B.

And given this classification, how can it be said that an image is self-generated by a child under 7 or 10 years of age in category A when there is sexual activity penetrative?  It is barbaric. Throwing out these data without giving the context or interpreting them under scientific evidence does not contribute to the protection of children or the prevention of abuse, it makes it worse.  What is behind these images is sexual assault of children, and it does not matter if the child takes a mobile phone or any other device; it is to keep a detail of the abusive situation, which again excuses the abusers. and not to take the full picture, which does offer us the analysis of the communicative acts of power, that what is sure to exist in all cases is an adult person who, by not naming him/her, victimises again, leaves the victims alone, even if they are only seven years old, and the abuser is protected.  The most abused continue to be girls by majority as seen in the second figure.