I love sex. I’m not ashamed to admit it. The stereotype that only men think about sex and women don’t is at best, antiquated, at worst, it’s just patently false. (Or haven’t you noticed the attention given by women to erotica novels and entertainment like the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy, Outlander, or Bridgerton?)

People have admired the naked human body almost from the moment we could draw. Sculptures and drawings date back to ancient times depicting nakedness — not to shame it, but to venerate it. Despite the recent uproar in Tennessee, what would the world of art be without Michelangelo’s David or The Creation of Adam?

So, it’s mystifying to have all this history and adoration of the human form, watch millions of dollars pumped by industries into selling sex (from makeup to clothing, to “how to please your partner in bed”) and then be told simultaneously that certain forms of sexual expression, entertainment, or even pleasure are taboo.

But America is a land of sexual contradictions. We can think about sex, we just can’t talk about it. Everyone masturbates, though we’ll pretend it’s just teenage boys. Most people probably wouldn’t turn down a peek at something “tasteful” from the privacy of our own homes, but we’d probably never admit it, maybe not even to our spouses.

No worries. I won’t judge you. But just remember every time you go to a baby shower, someone had a good time getting their game on. And that’s OK. Sex is normal and healthy. What goes on in the privacy of your home, or mine is just that, it’s private — provided it’s legal and consensual.

However, things get really heated (ahem) when the discussion turns to pornography. Why? In part, because we have a shifting definition of pornography. With some politicians feeding parents a false narrative that school curriculums include pornographic material, it can be confusing. Nudity in and of itself doesn’t constitute pornography. Technically, pornography is anything that depicts nudity or sexual acts to arouse one sexually. Furthermore, it is generally legal to purchase pornography in the United States.

Child abuse should not be confused with pornography. Last year, Eliot Cutler, a former high-profile lawyer and two-time candidate for Maine governor, was arrested for possession of unlawful sexually explicit material of a child under the age of 12; many articles referred to it as “child pornography.” This week, Cutler was sentenced. And once again, the headlines read for possession of “child porn.”

But this wasn’t “pornography.” This was child sexual abuse. That’s important because while pornography may not be your cup of tea, we must separate what is legal and consensual (again, pornography generally is in the U.S.), from that which is illegal, not consensual, and abhorrent. Also, when talking about children, using language other than “sexual abuse” seems to remove some culpability from the perpetrator, or at least make the charge seem less severe. And it helps create an excuse for softer punishments.

Cutler will serve only nine months in prison of a four-year sentence, followed by six years of probation. Does it fit the crime? No. He downloaded over “80,000 images of children younger than 12 engaged in often violent and unusual sexual acts,” many of which depicted “the brutal and savage rape of 4- to 6-year-old girls.” As reported by WMTW, Hancock County District Attorney Robert Granger argued the sentence was in line with comparable cases, saying, “Prosecutors cannot jump right to the maximum penalty simply because the public might be enraged by the conduct.” But we should be enraged. And our laws and punishments should reflect it.

Perhaps on the books, our laws do reflect it. Cutler wasn’t facing a soft punishment. He was charged with four counts and each count carried a maximum penalty of five years. Nine months feels like a slap. And it’s hardly a deterrent for future offenders. Moreover, it sends a tragic message about the lack of regard for his victims.

Maybe we need to start using language that reflects the grotesque nature of the crime. Read the following sentences: “He was caught with child porn.” “He was caught with images and videos of children who were sexually abused.” Which do you think captures how heinous this is? Consider someone who had over 80,000 images, many of children between the ages of four to six being violently raped. Does nine months seem reasonable?

Bottom line: If Cutler’s sentence is consistent with similar sentences, then we’re being soft with too many. If his sentence if soft compared to similar offenders, then we’re being soft because of who he is.

The battle about what qualifies as pornography may continue, but we can all agree that the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is detestable. Those who create, propagate, sell, and consume it should be held accountable in ways that demonstrate we want to protect our children.

Copy the Story Link