3 ms·

>Because I would argue that sharing of child pornography encourages people to create it. Suppose that's true. Does that mean that sharing of child pornography

>Because I would argue that sharing of child pornography encourages people to create it. Suppose that's true. Does that mean that sharing of child pornography increases the incidence of child abuse itself? I would argue probably not, or at least that the increase is fairly small compared to the resources that go into combating it. Public forums do encourage sharing, but that doesn't mean that what's being shared wouldn't have been done in the absence of the forum. It just wouldn't have been shared. The main questions that need to be answered are these: 1. Does viewing child pornography actually encourage child abuse? 2. Does viewing child pornography discourage child abuse by giving pedophiles a sexual outlet that doesn't involve harming additional children. 3. How much more does it cost to catch and prosecute someone who produces CP than someone who merely views it? It seems likely to me that, at best, we're wasting a lot of money reducing a factor that has a small negative impact on actual child welfare (people who view child pornography), when that money would be better directed at a factor that has a much larger negative impact (people who abuse children). At worst, we may be spending money going after a part of the problem which actually mitigates harm. Whether or not it is the latter is unfortunately a very difficult question to answer. Most common wisdom about "sexual repression" and "outlets" is pretty much without scientific basis, as is the opposite wisdom that pornography encourages sexual behavior. The one correlation that can be drawn is that the results of studies on these matters tend to align strongly with the politics of their authors. But in any case, yes I think it's safe to say that the focus specifically on pornography is wasted effort.

pestaa 13y ago
You cannot state either (1) or (2). It seems you're trying to believe the latter, and it might be true for some wrong-doers; however common sense suggests that not viewing such videos should contribute to lower abuse rates. Even if it is too costly to catch the viewers first, there's no better way to find the producers after.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Nature has proven again and again that common sense is unreliable and incorrect in nearly every scientific context. This one (statistics and psychology) should be no different. I believe studies exist which demonstrate that suppressing deviant behavior results in it manifesting itself more violently, not less. I wish I had a specific source to cite.
  - derefr 13y ago
    Mind you, there are also studies that actively "venting" emotions like rage will keep you angry longer than just ignoring them. (And then there are many social-science statistical surveys correlating the drop in violent crime over the past century with the rise in "things for bored, testosterone-filled adolescents to do that don't harm anybody", like video-games. (And then...)) This isn't one of those things where all the evidence just says something general and simple, and then can be specialized to infer what happens for a case like this; it's really one of those times where we need to test what happens in this case in particular.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    >I believe studies exist which demonstrate that suppressing deviant behavior results in it manifesting itself more violently, not less. I wish I had a specific source to cite. If you search for sources on that, I think you will find that the evidence is pretty divided. I actually had taken this as fact for a long time, but when I looked for sources to back it up, I found that it's not nearly so clear cut. What does seem to be the case is that making someone feel ashamed over things they can't control is psychologically damaging. For example, shame seems to be a very strong predictor of whether PTSD symptoms will emerge, both in sex crime victims and in war veterans. This problem of shame causing psychological problems, I think, may be where the idea of sexual repression being harmful came from. Suppression of sexual urges without shame may be completely harmless, but that's not usually how it happens unless you're doing a controlled study. As a society, we are completely dropping the ball in this respect. We make victims feel ashamed and broken, which is incredibly unfair, and likely exacerbates considerably the psychological harm that they have to deal with. And I think we're probably doing a lot of harm by making people who have sexual attraction to children feel ashamed. Given two people who are attracted to children, one of whom is relatively stable and secure, and one of whom has huge mental health issues, which one do you think is more likely to hurt a child? Moreover, if we teach people that having an urge is already wrong, then what is the moral incentive not to act on that urge? Instead, we should be teaching people that attraction toward children is actually pretty common, and that there's no reason to be ashamed of anything that happens inside your head, but that there are some urges and fantasies that you must not act on (or at least must not act out directly; there are some alternatives like role-play and simulated pornography).
- mistercow 13y ago
  >You cannot state either (1) or (2). I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that evidence is lacking? Because that was my whole point. >It seems you're trying to believe the latter I'm not trying to believe anything. That would be a mortal sin. I am saying that we don't have evidence to rule out either 1 or 2, and both seem about equally plausible. It would certainly be convenient for 2 to be true, since it would give us a pretty easy option for deterring child abuse (high quality simulated CP). That's why I think it's important that we find answers those questions. If 1 is true, I want to believe 1. If 2 is true, I want to believe 2.
rtpg 13y ago
Even if 2. were true, you can also easily argue that the prevelance of child pornography is going to increase the amount of people attracted to this "fetish", so can still increase the risk of child abuse. The problem is not one-dimensional Not to mention that considering viewing to be socially acceptable , in itself, damages society (by lowering social norms). And I'd say it's gotten to a strange level in "internet" society. Think of all child porn jokes out there. Replace it with something else (say, necrophilia), and it's just weird.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >you can also easily argue that the prevelance of child pornography is going to increase the amount of people attracted to this "fetish" Can you argue that so easily? Because I see the claim made very often. I have seen zero strong arguments supporting it. If you think you can argue for this position effectively, I invite you to try. >Not to mention that considering viewing to be socially acceptable , in itself, damages society (by lowering social norms) First of all, there's a gigantic difference between switching enforcement efforts away from people who view CP, and making the viewing of CP socially acceptable. But if you're saying that it harms society to make having sexual attraction to children socially acceptable, I couldn't disagree more. I think the only plausible hope we have for significantly reducing child sexual abuse is a revolution in how our culture understands morality as it applies to internal mental states. If you want to teach someone not to act on urges to harmful behavior, you aren't going to get very far by telling them that they're evil for having the urge in the first place.

pestaa 13y ago

You cannot state either (1) or (2). It seems you're trying to believe the latter, and it might be true for some wrong-doers; however common sense suggests that not viewing such videos should contribute to lower abuse rates. Even if it is too costly to catch the viewers first, there's no better way to find the producers after.

sillysaurus 13y ago
Nature has proven again and again that common sense is unreliable and incorrect in nearly every scientific context. This one (statistics and psychology) should be no different. I believe studies exist which demonstrate that suppressing deviant behavior results in it manifesting itself more violently, not less. I wish I had a specific source to cite.
- derefr 13y ago
  Mind you, there are also studies that actively "venting" emotions like rage will keep you angry longer than just ignoring them. (And then there are many social-science statistical surveys correlating the drop in violent crime over the past century with the rise in "things for bored, testosterone-filled adolescents to do that don't harm anybody", like video-games. (And then...)) This isn't one of those things where all the evidence just says something general and simple, and then can be specialized to infer what happens for a case like this; it's really one of those times where we need to test what happens in this case in particular.
- mistercow 13y ago
  >I believe studies exist which demonstrate that suppressing deviant behavior results in it manifesting itself more violently, not less. I wish I had a specific source to cite. If you search for sources on that, I think you will find that the evidence is pretty divided. I actually had taken this as fact for a long time, but when I looked for sources to back it up, I found that it's not nearly so clear cut. What does seem to be the case is that making someone feel ashamed over things they can't control is psychologically damaging. For example, shame seems to be a very strong predictor of whether PTSD symptoms will emerge, both in sex crime victims and in war veterans. This problem of shame causing psychological problems, I think, may be where the idea of sexual repression being harmful came from. Suppression of sexual urges without shame may be completely harmless, but that's not usually how it happens unless you're doing a controlled study. As a society, we are completely dropping the ball in this respect. We make victims feel ashamed and broken, which is incredibly unfair, and likely exacerbates considerably the psychological harm that they have to deal with. And I think we're probably doing a lot of harm by making people who have sexual attraction to children feel ashamed. Given two people who are attracted to children, one of whom is relatively stable and secure, and one of whom has huge mental health issues, which one do you think is more likely to hurt a child? Moreover, if we teach people that having an urge is already wrong, then what is the moral incentive not to act on that urge? Instead, we should be teaching people that attraction toward children is actually pretty common, and that there's no reason to be ashamed of anything that happens inside your head, but that there are some urges and fantasies that you must not act on (or at least must not act out directly; there are some alternatives like role-play and simulated pornography).
mistercow 13y ago
>You cannot state either (1) or (2). I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that evidence is lacking? Because that was my whole point. >It seems you're trying to believe the latter I'm not trying to believe anything. That would be a mortal sin. I am saying that we don't have evidence to rule out either 1 or 2, and both seem about equally plausible. It would certainly be convenient for 2 to be true, since it would give us a pretty easy option for deterring child abuse (high quality simulated CP). That's why I think it's important that we find answers those questions. If 1 is true, I want to believe 1. If 2 is true, I want to believe 2.

rtpg 13y ago

Even if 2. were true, you can also easily argue that the prevelance of child pornography is going to increase the amount of people attracted to this "fetish", so can still increase the risk of child abuse. The problem is not one-dimensional Not to mention that considering viewing to be socially acceptable , in itself, damages society (by lowering social norms). And I'd say it's gotten to a strange level in "internet" society. Think of all child porn jokes out there. Replace it with something else (say, necrophilia), and it's just weird.

mistercow 13y ago
>you can also easily argue that the prevelance of child pornography is going to increase the amount of people attracted to this "fetish" Can you argue that so easily? Because I see the claim made very often. I have seen zero strong arguments supporting it. If you think you can argue for this position effectively, I invite you to try. >Not to mention that considering viewing to be socially acceptable , in itself, damages society (by lowering social norms) First of all, there's a gigantic difference between switching enforcement efforts away from people who view CP, and making the viewing of CP socially acceptable. But if you're saying that it harms society to make having sexual attraction to children socially acceptable, I couldn't disagree more. I think the only plausible hope we have for significantly reducing child sexual abuse is a revolution in how our culture understands morality as it applies to internal mental states. If you want to teach someone not to act on urges to harmful behavior, you aren't going to get very far by telling them that they're evil for having the urge in the first place.