AI nudification, dishonour abuse, and why children must be protected now
By Aneeta Prem MBE
AI-powered “nudification” tools are creating a new form of sexual abuse that many adults still do not fully understand, but children are already living with.
These tools use artificial intelligence to turn an ordinary photo into a fake nude image. What began on the dark web and fringe forums is now packaged as mainstream apps and websites, often described as “fun”, “pranks”, or even “art”.
For children, there is no meaningful difference between a real nude image and a fake one. Both can destroy reputations, damage mental health, and change the course of a young life.
This is not a future risk. It is happening now, at scale, and largely in plain sight.
AI nudification is when computer software is used to make a fake nude image of a real person from a normal photo.
The person in the photo has not agreed to this.
The image is not real, but it can look real enough to cause serious harm.
For children, the impact is the same as if the image were real. Fake nude images are used to shame, threaten, bully, and blackmail.
Under UK law, sexual images of children – whether real or AI-generated – are treated as child sexual abuse material.
For decades, child protection focused on preventing the creation and sharing of real indecent images of children. AI nudification changes the rules entirely.
A single innocent photo – a school trip, a sports day, a selfie – can be copied, uploaded, and transformed into sexualised material that looks real enough to be believed. A child does not need to take or send an intimate image for abuse to occur. Their body can be fabricated from pixels that never existed.
Child protection law was never designed for a world where a child’s body can be invented, weaponised, and endlessly reproduced by software. That gap is only now being addressed.
The pattern is clear and deeply concerning.
AI sexual imagery overwhelmingly targets girls and women. At the same time, teenage boys are more likely to be the ones creating, sharing, or forwarding these images. In some UK classrooms, several pupils have already encountered nudified or deepfake images.
This is not harmless experimentation. It is the digital continuation of school-yard misogyny, amplified by code.
The harm to boys is real too. Boys are drawn into an online culture where cruelty earns attention, empathy is mocked, and respect for girls is treated as weakness. When boys are told that “everyone does it”, they are being recruited into an economy that normalises sexual humiliation as entertainment.
Later, those same boys may face serious consequences: criminal records, permanent digital footprints, and the lifelong conflict of knowing they caused harm before they fully understood it.
“Not in my name” must be more than a slogan. It must be a refusal by boys and young men to be used as cover for an industry that profits from the abuse of girls while pretending it is simply offering tools.
For children whose images are nudified, the impact is often invisible but profound.
Many describe the fear of knowing this technology exists as being as frightening as an actual image being shared. Once they understand how easily it can be done, every phone in the room feels like a threat.
Girls talk about avoiding school, stopping activities, or changing how they dress, simply to reduce the risk of being photographed.
Research from the Children’s Commissioner for England shows that many teenagers believe it would be worse to have a fake nude image created of them than a real one. A real image can sometimes be explained as a mistake or a betrayal of trust. An AI image sends a different message:
“Your body is not yours. Anyone can do this to you.”
Shame keeps many children silent. They fear adults will believe the image is real or blame them for taking the original photo, however innocent it was. For some, withdrawing from school, friendships, and online spaces feels safer than being visible.
I use the term dishonour abuse deliberately.
Dishonour abuse describes harm where shame is used as a weapon to control, silence, or punish women and girls. There is nothing honourable about this abuse. The dishonour belongs entirely to the abuser.
AI nudification follows the same pattern.
A girl is harmed not because of what she has done, but because someone wants to humiliate her, threaten her reputation, or frighten her into silence. The image is the tool. Shame is the weapon.
This is why nudification apps are not just a technology problem. They are a modern form of violence against women and girls and a clear example of dishonour abuse online.
You can read more about dishonour abuse and safeguarding here:
👉 https://www.freedomcharity.org.uk
Nudification is not limited to playground cruelty. It is now used by organised abusers and extortion networks.
Criminals need only a handful of non-sexual images from a child’s social media or gaming accounts to create convincing sexual imagery. That imagery is then used to blackmail the child into sending real images, paying money, or complying with escalating demands.
The NSPCC has warned that AI is increasingly being used to enable sextortion and coercion, removing the need for an offender to persuade a child to send an initial image.
The speed, scale, and anonymity of AI make this form of abuse cheap, fast, and extremely hard to trace.
The law is catching up, but it has been slow.
This matters because it targets the companies and developers who profit from this abuse, not only the individuals who commit it.
UK Government guidance on online safety can be found here:
👉 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/online-safety-bill
If someone makes a fake nude image of you:
If you are under 18, you can use Report Remove to help get images taken down:
👉 https://www.iwf.org.uk/report-remove
You can also talk to a trusted adult, teacher, or contact Childline:
👉 https://www.childline.org.uk
You deserve protection, support, and to be believed.
Stopping nudification is not only about banning apps. It is about changing the culture that makes them marketable.
Children need clear, honest conversations about AI-based sexual abuse. Consent does not disappear online. If you would not strip someone’s clothes off in real life, you do not get to do it with code.
This is where boys as allies matter. When boys refuse to use these tools, challenge friends who do, and say “this does not represent me”, the social cost rises faster than any legal penalty.
For girls, the message must be equally clear: if an image is created of you without permission, real or fake, the blame lies entirely with the person who did it.
Children should never have to choose between having a digital life and having a safe one.
Is AI nudification illegal in the UK?
Sexual images of children, including AI-generated images, are already illegal. New laws are being introduced to ban the creation and supply of nudification apps altogether.
Why are girls targeted more than boys?
Most AI sexual images are made of women and girls. This reflects wider patterns of hatred of women and the use of shame to control girls’ behaviour.
What does dishonour abuse mean online?
It means using shame and humiliation to control or silence someone. Online, this often happens through images, threats, and public exposure.
AI nudification is a test of whether society is willing to treat online sexual abuse of children with the same seriousness as abuse that happens offline.
It is also a test of whether boys and young men will allow their identities to be shaped by an industry that profits from the suffering of girls, or whether they will stand together and say, clearly and confidently:
Not in my name.
Lee Milne's sentencing in Scotland is a legal milestone. More importantly, it forces the law and the public to face a truth survivors have long understood: coercive control can be fatal, even where the perpetrator did not physically commit the final act.
The UK now describes forced marriage, FGM and so-called honour-based abuse more accurately than before. But the law still struggles to prosecute how these crimes often happen in real life: through family pressure, community enforcement, fear, shame and collective control.
The World Health Organisation has marked World Health Day 2026 under the theme “Together for health. Stand with science.” It is a timely message. But health is not only about medicine. It is also about whether people can live safely, speak freely and make choices without fear.
The March 2026 safeguarding update makes one thing harder to deny: forced marriage and FGM belong inside mainstream child protection. The question now is whether institutions can act early enough to prevent harm.
Noelia Castillo Ramos died in Barcelona on 26 March 2026 after a long legal battle over her right to euthanasia. Her death will reignite debate over assisted dying. The deeper human rights question is what failed her long before the final decision.
Female genital mutilation reconstruction UK, NHS pathway for FGM survivors, clitoral reconstruction UK, FGM survivor care UK, Women and Equalities Committee FGM reconstruction