Child porn - a public health problem?

[fencingmatt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3095271.stm

A New Zealand study found that the biggest group of people who download illegal images of children are students and teenagers living at home with their parents. More importantly, those who are good at using the internet.

Now then - some naive people have suggested that young people who are exposed to child porn online are victims, just like the children in the images. But that appears to me to be an excuse because they don't want to believe that it is often children and teenagers who are the perverts, rather than those who are being prayed upon. The growth of the internet has made it easy for anyone to get their hands on illegal images if they know where to look. And many people do look, ranging from those who have a mere curiosity to those with a much darker purpose. But my point is that the reports of just how many people are searching for these images online show how many people are open to the idea of sex with children. I for one believe that the percentage of people who have thought about children sexually is far greater than anyone could ever imagine. Yet society still condemns people who look at these images as sick people. Surely it is society itself that is sick. This is a public health problem, rather than the mental health problem of certain indiciduals.

Why do people look at child porn? Some do it because they are sexually attracted to children but most do it because they know it's sick/wrong/immoral/ to do so. In other words, it is the taboo factor that they are turned on by rather than the sight of a naked child. This can lead them to look for more and more extreme images because they get addicted. It follows that, the more society forbids something, the more people get a kick out of doing it. The more we try to shove the problem under the carpet, the bigger the problem becomes.

Discuss...

[J842P]

Wait, so how is a teenager looking at naked teenagers perverted? Have I misunderstood?

I guess my confusion comes from how you define 'child' porn and teenagers.

[1997]

No one who gets turned on by naked teens is perverted, or even aberrant.

I think that he was using the term in a generic-societal sense.

[general_koffi]

More importantly, those who are good at using the internet.

Why is that important?

Being highly illegal and taboo, child-porn repositories aren't exactly among the first ten hits one gets with Google. You have to be savvy with more obscure technology and communication mediums to access the circles which share real child pornography. i.e. You have to be more internet-savvy than most.

I trust that we're talking about young pre-teens being the victims of "child" pornography, right? Because I fail to see what would be abhorrent about a teenager being attracted to another teenager.

[Gamer4Fire]

Young teens wanting to see other young teens, except naked. Sounds normal to me. Where's the health problem?

[Jo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3095271.stm

A New Zealand study found that the biggest group of people who download illegal images of children are students and teenagers living at home with their parents. More importantly, those who are good at using the internet.

The article states "internet-savvy young men, living at home with their parents" The article is also 5 years old. The supporting information being 12 years old. Ironically in 2003 our laws around children have undergone major changes, especially around what is considered abuse has extended. Our internet laws are still in the conclusion process as of 2008.

I will be happy to debate this article with you using the latest data we have (since this is a New Zealand based article).

<clipped the rest>

ETA: A Formal Debate Proposal (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5355983#post5355983) has been issued.

[fencingmatt]

Wait, so how is a teenager looking at naked teenagers perverted? Have I misunderstood?No, you just haven't read the article. It states: "Virtually all of the offenders (99) had collected child pornography (children, not teenagers.) But other types of material were collected as well. Seventeen had images of sexual violence, 27 had scat images, 32 bestiality, and 14 had images of torture. Two had images of necrophilia."

Why is that important?It demonstrates that there are probably a whole load of less internet savy people who would access the material if they knew how to. It is a way of demonstrating how big the problem is.

I trust that we're talking about young pre-teens being the victims of "child" pornography, right?Right.

The article states "internet-savvy young men, living at home with their parents"It also states that the most common age of offender was 17.

ETA: A Formal Debate Proposal (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5355983#post5355983) has been issued.I accept.

I have just looked at the debate proposal and I don't think it's clear at all. I don't remember saying that child porn is not a public health risk and I do not wish to argue that. My view is that it is a public health problem, rather than a mental health problem of those who look at child porn. They don't look at porn because they are sick in the head or even because they are a paedophile. They look at it because of the taboo factor. We should stop scapegoating the offenders (especially since it has been estimated that only 1% are ever caught) and start looking for other ways to protect children, like offering treatment to offenders and being more open about the issue. That is what I am arguing.

[anders]

My view is that it is a public health problem,
To reply, I need your definition of "public health problem".
rather than a mental health problem of those who look at child porn. They don't look at porn because they are sick in the head or even because they are a paedophile. They look at it because of the taboo factor.
I can buy that. "Hey, what is this child porn/alcohol/drugs thing that scares all adults?"

[Jo]

Right.

It also states that the most common age of offender was 17.


You stated "children and teenagers". The article states "young men" and "young people". Those studied (106 people) ranged between the ages 14 to 67 years, the average being 30 (offenders that downloaded). Under a quarter of those 106 were under the age of 20 years. Under a third were students and aged around 17 years of age. Secondary School students (13 to 18 years old in this country) were sexually curious and used the internet. The study also identified that "no women were identified in the sample ... suggests that this factor is also insufficient in terms of explaining offending," the study says."

The article further states that:

The department cautions against using the findings of the study to make a causal link between viewing child pornography and offending against children, but does say its findings suggest an association between the two.

[fencingmatt]

To reply, I need your definition of "public health problem".I mean that child abuse is not caused by a few sick individuals but by society's attitudes toward sex, children and paedophilia. And it can be stopped by adopting different attitudes.

"Hey, what is this child porn/alcohol/drugs thing that scares all adults?"What does that mean? :confused:

You stated "children and teenagers". The article states "young men" and "young people".I said the biggest group of offenders were "students and teenagers living at home with their parents", which is exactly what the article says:


But almost a quarter of the offenders were aged less than 20 years.

Almost a third of the offenders were students and a third lived at home with their parents or grandparents. The most common age of offending in the study's sample was 17.


We can draw from this that students are the biggest group of culprits and that 17 is the most likely age for one to download child porn. At least this was the case in the sample that was studied.

The study also identified that "no women were identified in the sample ... suggests that this factor is also insufficient in terms of explaining offending," the study says."All that proves is that men have darker minds than women and are more likely to be turned on by something simple because it is taboo.

Did you read the second half of my post, about the debate?

[anders]

"Hey, what is this child porn/alcohol/drugs thing that scares all adults?"What does that mean?

I tried to imagine the way young persons would think to motivate them to get personal experience of something that us fossiles condemn.

[fencingmatt]

I tried to imagine the way young persons would think to motivate them to get personal experience of something that us fossiles condemn.The same way that adult 'paedophiles' think. The more something is forbidden, the more you want it.

[Jo]

My view is that it is a public health problem, rather than a mental health problem of those who look at child porn. They don't look at porn because they are sick in the head or even because they are a paedophile. They look at it because of the taboo factor. We should stop scapegoating the offenders (especially since it has been estimated that only 1% are ever caught) and start looking for other ways to protect children, like offering treatment to offenders and being more open about the issue. That is what I am arguing.


Just to clarify a few things - mental health IS a public issue. Pornography is also a public issue. Any situation where different groups are identified and their impact on each other is identified, its public. For example, gay rights, sporting fundraisers, child abuse and so forth.

I also removed "risk" in my debate proposal and put "problem" in it.

Is child porn a public health problem? Would require specific boundaries, and interpretations would need to be agreed.

[fencingmatt]

But child porn is not treated like a public health issue. Society accepts no responsibility and the attitude towards offenders demonstrates this. My views are in line with the group 'Stop It Now!' (http://www.stopitnow.org.uk/about.htm), who argue that we should change our attitudes towards child porn and child abuse in general. They argue that society should accept responsibility for creating the scourge that is child abuse. We should stop scapegoating paedophiles and adopt a more sympathetic approach, encouraging them to get help, as well as take steps to inform children about the dangers. That is what I mean when I say 'public health problem.'

And, for the record, I am the one arguing in favour of it being a public health problem, not against.

[general_koffi]

Uh.

Specific changes to law and government policy?

It's easy to talk in broad, sweeping strokes and get people to agree with you.

[LukeS]

Personally I don't see how it's legal to hook up with a 16 year old, and do literally anything from asphyxiating oral to nazi inspired bondage with nobs on, but one cant look at a simple sexually alluring photo of her elder sister* withough being labelled a criminal and a horrible pervert.

Well I can see how, but it doesn't quite add up.


*(taking "child porn" to mean explicit or erotic images of those under 18)

[fencingmatt]

Specific changes to law and government policy?Personally, I am in favour of abolishing the age of consent entirely, but attitudes would need to change first to create an atmosphere where this would be possible without risking harm to children.

[Ruiner]

Fleeting thoughts of intercourse with just about anything, even a bagel, are natural. Indulging in the actuality of them is only natural for those who feel that unrestrained perversion of normality is preferable to bottling up these desires, which is a selfish act. Selfish acts with repercussions that may be harmful to the parents, the children and/or the baker can be deemed wrong and should be.

Indulging in perversion, while in some contexts is an afforded luxury of a free society, should have it's limitations when selfish acts of desire are perpetrated upon those either unwilling or unaware or unable to give consent. The lack of knowledge, the use of coercion, threats or physical harm make the act a cruel, one-sided crime against the humanity of the victim.


ETA: if you can't tell, I don't think society is wrong in persecuting those who encourage or indulge in the abuse of unwilling minors, and I consider that although consent is given, the presence of influential circumstances have to be taken into account, and under very few circumstances is consent FREELY given without some kind of active or passive, positive or negative influence.

[Jo]

But child porn is not treated like a public health issue.

Since this topic began with a New Zealand article, I'll counter this with another (may 2008) New Zealand article:

In the latest issue of the Sexual and Relationship Therapy journal, Robyn Salisbury, the director of Sex Therapy New Zealand, says treatment of the condition has been neglected for too long.

In an article she suggests practical measures to address sexual addiction such as developing strong non-sexual relationships and directly addressing such individual behaviours as chronic masturbation.

Salisbury said sexual addiction was at the root of many social ills.

With a reminder that social ills are public concerns.

Further on the article states:

Salisbury said a recent case involving a teacher spotted looking at child pornography was an example of sexual addiction.

Article is here. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4515079a19716.html)

Society accepts no responsibility and the attitude towards offenders demonstrates this. My views are in line with the group 'Stop It Now!' (http://www.stopitnow.org.uk/about.htm), who argue that we should change our attitudes towards child porn and child abuse in general.

I don't overly care what the UK is doing. My central focus is on an article in the original post which was written in New Zealand.

Social Policy Journal (3 March, 2007) - New Zealand (http://www.msd.govt.nz/publications/journal/30-march-2007/30-pages65-78.html) states:

n March 2003 the Minister of Justice stated that the penalties were “clearly inadequate and fail to reflect the fact that the production of child pornography involves the actual abuse of children”. The new penalties were to be a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment for supply and distribution of child pornography and a maximum of two years’ imprisonment for possession of child pornography (Goff 2003). These penalties would apply only in cases where the offender knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, that the publications were objectionable. In practice, the nature of the images over which people are charged is usually clearly objectionable and their status is seldom challenged.

They argue that society should accept responsibility for creating the scourge that is child abuse.

Which is why we have laws in place protecting children from being exploited and abused.

We should stop scapegoating paedophiles and adopt a more sympathetic approach, encouraging them to get help, as well as take steps to inform children about the dangers.

Pedophiles are determined because they have a sexual desire towards children. Children are protected from adults wishing to exploit them for their own sexual purposes.

That is what I mean when I say 'public health problem.'

And, for the record, I am the one arguing in favour of it being a public health problem, not against.

I consider removing laws protecting children to be a public health issue. Actually so does the law.

[fencingmatt]

Selfish acts with repercussions that may be harmful to the parents, the children and/or the baker can be deemed wrong and should be.That doesn't mean we can't try our best to understand them.

In an article she suggests practical measures to address sexual addiction such as developing strong non-sexual relationships and directly addressing such individual behaviours as chronic masturbation.

Salisbury said sexual addiction was at the root of many social ills.[/indent]

With a reminder that social ills are public concerns.I agree with Salisbury. However, the debate is not so much weather child porn is a public concern but whether it is treated like one. The continued attempts to scapegoat paedophiles and limited attempts to offer help to those who suffer from sexual addictions demonstrate that it is still seen very much as the problem of a few sick men. Very few people are able to see the truth, without their feelings getting in the way, as Salisbury is. Society refuses to accept any of the blame or responsibility for putting things right.

Which is why we have laws in place protecting children from being exploited and abused.Bringing us back to the whole scapegoating of offenders thing I was talking about.

Pedophiles are determined because they have a sexual desire towards children.What happened to the whole sexual addiction idea?

Children are protected from adults wishing to exploit them for their own sexual purposes.But no one ever considers that the best way to help the child victims is to cure their abusers before they abuse.

I consider removing laws protecting children to be a public health issue. Actually so does the law.If they were suddenly removed tomorrow then it would be, but then I am not advocating that am I?

[fencingmatt]

After just reading the article by Salisbury, I would say I definitely agree with her. I especially agree with the line: 'Conservative attitudes to sex were partly to blame for this.' I think this is a good example of how society's attitudes are to blame for the sickness inside people's heads.

[ZeusTKP]

So, how, exactly, is child porn defined?