Talk:Relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 July 2019 and 22 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Naperry, Naperry1. Peer reviewers: Ihiggins090.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This article seems kinda NPOV and biased in favour of the pedophiles towards the end, right down to some of the language. On that data that some people are saying tells us that legalising kiddy porn reduces abuse cases: It couldn't be the case that they're now being underreported in those places because the percieved wisdom after the legalisation is that the abuse behaviours are "okay", could it? 120.152.27.194 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not talking about "legalizing kiddy porn". The suggestion is to legalize simulated child pornography. It has nothing to do with the morality of the thing. It has to do with the fact that a researcher thinks this may be an effective public policy in reducing child sexual maltreatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjwood (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Many studies also point to actual, real child porn reducing recidivism rates in populations as viewing child porn acts as a legitimate non-violent outlet for pedophile urges. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Boilingorangejuice's assertion that "[m]any studies also point to actual, real child porn reducing recidivism rates in populations" is incorrect, as is also clear by the current state of the article. In other words, the "many studies" assertion is a stretch. This aspect is also discussed below, as, by distribution, there is a serious cycle of abuse aspect to the viewing of child pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article currently looks like this after more tweaks to it. It's important to note simulated child pornography in the lead; so I did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Extreme bias

This article mainly references studies done on prison inmates that were sexual predators and than extrapolates those results on the rest of the non-violent pedophile population. We do not use information about heterosexual non-minor rapists to generalize information about all heterosexual non-minor fornicators. More alternative sources are needed to represent the alternative view point for this article to make it more balanced. Wikipedia is not a place for hysteria.

A loose analogy that may help individuals understand the argument here is does playing violent video games make an gamer more likely to commit murder or reduce the chance of them committing a violent act because they have a positive, non-criminal outlet for their violent urges. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Pinging: Legitimus and KateWishing, any opinions on the literature in this regard, and how best to present it for this topic? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I issue my usual challenge: Show me your reliable sources for what you are saying. Some sources are better than others. Peer-reviewed medical studies are best. Pro-pedophile websites, not so much. Regarding medical journals, I have the ability access the full text in the vast majority of cases, so I can provide additional verification of the content.Legitimus (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is full text of one of the articles I have read. http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-porn-in-czech-republic.html It was sponsored by University of Hawaii, John A. Burns School of Medicine and also J.S. Purkinje University in Czech Republic. In the 90's, possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense in the Czech Republic. " the number of reported cases of child sex abuse immediately dropped markedly after [child pornography] was legalized and became available" and "As with adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggression everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the availability of child porn does similarly. We believe this particularly since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was used as a substitute subject." So a similar pattern has been found in Japan and Denmark.

There are a few journals that also have views reflecting this perspective but this article disprotionately shows American studies that focus on convicted sex offenders using that data to smear all pedophiles as being predisposed to violence.

Boilingorangejuice (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

On review, it's not that I have a problem with your source, it's that I think your accusation about this article lacks merit. I was not actually aware of this article until Flyer22 pinged me, and reading it now, I don't feel it's as one-sided as you make it sound. The opening paragraph makes it very clear this is an controversial topic where we don't have all the answers yet. It's also clear you did not read the article entirely, because your study above is already referenced multiple times in the article, with details in the section "Views on sublimation," which specifically details your argument.Legitimus (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Legitimus. Whether or not watching pornography reduces crime is also addressed in the Effects of pornography article, which is more of a WP:Med topic and so, per WP:MEDRS, is supposed to have better sourcing. Because the topic is not too heavily studied, though, WP:MEDDATE's suggestion to relax the sourcing standard applies in that case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sharp eye Legitimus. I will update the reference to use the already sourced file. I still stand by my position that this article is biased as the only anti-criminality information is buried deep in the article instead of in the summary indicative of hiding alternative perspectives. I will be working to improve this article over the next few days.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

One point I feel the need to make is that, unless it's simulated child pornography not involving an actual child, child pornography causes harm to the child or children involved; so one of the arguments regarding child pornography reducing the rate of child sexual abuse is that in order for child pornography to reduce that rate, it has to add to the rate of child sexual abuse by facilitating the abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Also pinging James Cantor, since he is cited in the article and likely has something to state on this topic here at this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And another thing: The vast majority of what we know about child sexual abusers and pedophiles is based on child sexual abuse offenders and offending pedophiles; we can only go on the literature in cases such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

" it has to add to the rate of child sexual abuse by facilitating the abuse" Flyer22 please refrain from posting original research. Wikipedia is not a forum for wanton speculation. Viewing childporn does not directly affect children anymore than viewing a video of a man being beaten by thugs hurts the victim. It is not documented that individuals that view childporn are increasing the rate of child abuse outside of the minority of individuals that pay to view child abuse. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Boilingorangejuice. The viewing in and of itself is not at issue, but rather the economics. Viewing of real children being abused is a form of demand, which in turn creates an incentive to create more pornography by producers, thus leading to more abuse. To use your own analogy, yes the viewing of a beating does not harm the victim per se. But if many individuals have a deep, powerful drive to view such violence that must be sated repeatedly with new and novel material on a daily to weekly basis, it creates demand for persons to produce more videos of beatings. This is not wanton speculation but documented fact, per the child pornography article itself.Legitimus (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Legitimus is exactly correct. Furthermore, the WP:Original research policy does not apply to talk pages, as is currently made clear in the introduction of that policy. Something else to consider is that, as noted in the Effects of pornography article, the existence of child pornography has led some men who have never had any interest in sexual activity with children and have never been sexually aroused by such a thought to seek out that kind of pornography; this is because watching the same type of pornography over and over again can, due to the sexual stimuli no longer being enough to excite them, cause people to become bored with that type of pornography (for example, think of how many men no longer get sexually aroused by viewing breasts), and they then seek out novel pornography (a new type of pornography genre) to become sexually excited. It's like desensitization. I've also seen it compared to the Coolidge effect. In some cases, seeking out that novel pornography includes child pornography and/or bestiality. Or they seek out some other type of extreme pornography. Various men have attested that this has happened to them. It's similar (not too similar, though) to how, for a sexual fantasy, some women have rape fantasies but would never want to be raped in real life. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Legitimus, I don’t understand how viewing can be considered demand when this ‘demand’ is not transparent to the child pornography producers. Simply viewing a digital image is not the same as buying a finite good. The producers can’t even tell what the demand is because the producers can’t tell if someone is viewing something non-tangible. Flyer22 I think your point holds more water, about how child porn exposure to non-pedophiles can normalize the behavior and convert them into pedophiles however I still think viewing child porn acts as a positive outlet for potentially violent individuals. I think more children are saved by child porn being available because the rapists have an outlet versus child porn not being available and the rapists going out on the street to rape/groom a child. Yes sometimes violet video games can cause individuals to act out those aggression in real life but I think overall violent video games reduce violence in real life because it acts as an outlet for violence.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Boilingorangejuice, I don't see how you don't understand what Legitimus means. What he stated is what I was stating, except he expressed the matter more clearly, and, as he noted, it is supported by some research on child pornography. Also, many victims of child pornography have stated that they have been psychologically or socially harmed by knowing that people are using pictures and/or videos of them for sexual pleasure; one case is documented in the "Child sexual abuse in production and distribution" section at the Child pornography article that Legitimus pointed to. As for converting, I didn't state that non-pedophiles can be converted into pedophiles. As you know, pedophilia is not the same thing as child sexual abuse. The Pedophilia article is clear that not every person who has expressed sexual interest in a prepubescent child is technically a pedophile. What I was stating is that the repeated viewing of a certain type of pornography can, for some people (usually men), cause them to become bored with that type of pornography, and that it then takes a new type of pornography to get them sexually excited or hold their interest. At the basic level, this can include a man getting tired of vaginal pornography and then wanting to view nothing but anal pornography. At the more extreme side, it can include people turning to torture porn, necrophilia porn, scat porn, bestiality porn, child pornography, or something else; in these same cases, a number of the viewers state that they wouldn't be interested in the extreme type of sexual activity in real life, but, for pornography, they need the more novel and/or extreme visuals to become sexually aroused. This is why I referenced rape fantasy above; a number of women have stated that they have rape fantasies, but that they would not want to be raped in real life. A number of men have stated that they have fantasized about raping a woman or watch rape porn, but that they would not want to rape a woman in real life. Even so, there are cases where, for some people, fantasy crosses a line to become true desire and the person eventually wants to act out that fantasy. All of this is a part of the pornography debate. As for the benefit of child pornography, I don't share your view. Even simulated child pornography might give a person the inclination to commit child sexual abuse; we don't know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, folks. Just saw the ping. I don't know if I really have that much to say that hasn't already been pointed out. On the one hand, I think Boilingorangejuice does have a point regarding some bias in the writing. The content of the literature is actually very simple: Many hands-on offenders used child porn first, but few child porn offenders appear to go on to commit hands-on offences. It is also true that the public usually fails to distinguish among porn which depicts actual abuse of a child, to simple nudity (imagine a vacation pic of topless 8-year old girl on a nude beach in France...), to entirely victimless erotica (fiction, anime, etc.). It's not a very strong bias, IMO, and can be corrected with some good editing. The RS's look decent to me, although there are some more very high quality ones that could be integrated. (I'm thinking about recent works by Michael Seto.) I hope that's a help.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, James Cantor. When you state "but few child porn offenders appear to go on to commit hands-on offences," it's clear that you mean people who have watched child pornography without having committed child sexual abuse. But my counterargument to that is: How do we really know they haven't committed child sexual abuse? As you know, so many (likely the vast majority of) child sexual abusers are never caught. Many people who have been sexually abused as children never report it until later in life, if ever, for a number of reasons. I noted above that "The vast majority of what we know about child sexual abusers and pedophiles is based on child sexual abuse offenders and offending pedophiles; we can only go on the literature in cases such as these." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not stating that all people who have watched child pornography have very likely gone on to commit child sexual abuse. After all, above I did note the deviancy route various men have experienced after having gotten bored with standard porn or the porn they usually watch. And in many cases, child pornography is watched by researchers or law enforcement for research purposes. But I am bringing up the following question: How do we know "few child porn offenders appear to go on to commit hands-on offences"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer is indeed correct that large proportions go unreported, and I can't of course prove a null hypothesis. (It is always possible that there exists an invisible population large enough to reverse a conclusion from the portion we can see.) That said, I think we are on firm grounds. Whenever either a hands-on offender or porn offender is reported, the authorities typically do very thorough scans of his computers and any/all children in the environment. The hands-on folks usually have child porn, but the porn folks don't often have a hands on victim. That is, although hands-on offences do not always get reported spontaneously, it is rare for one to escape notice once an investigation is already triggered by the discovery of the porn. I hope that's a help.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input James. I will be working on this article and other related ones to make them more balanced and more well referenced. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"I did note the deviancy route various men have experienced after having gotten bored with standard porn or the porn they usually watch." Flyer22 please refrain of sexist, bigoted statements. Wikipedia is not a place for discrimination or hate especially hate speech based on original research or anecdotal evidence. If you continue to spout hate speech I will have to report you for harassment. Thank you for complying with Wikipedia's core policies. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Boilingorangejuice, there is nothing sexist or bigoted about what I have stated. And what I have stated about pedophiles, child sexual abusers and so on has not been based on original research or solely on anecdotal evidence. I've also already told you that the WP:Original policy does not apply to talk pages. If you take issue with me stating "various men," then you are taking issue with the literature. The vast majority of people who watch pornography, and especially in a habitual fashion, are boys and men. And it is men who have stated that they took the deviancy route after having gotten bored with standard porn or the porn they usually watch. Note that, by "deviancy," I mean sexual deviance (also known as paraphilia) or a sexual activity that is not considered typical by researchers or the general public. And as James and I have made very clear more than once at this site, including in a discussion at Talk:Paraphilia, paraphilias are rarely observed in girls and women. There's also the fact that the vast majority of documented child sexual abusers and pedophiles are men. Despite all of this, I have made sure to usually state "people" instead of "men" in this discussion. Feel free to report me, but it will get you nowhere. I will warn you now that your edits are being heavily scrutinized by different editors, and there have been suggestions to WP:Block you, partly because of your arguments and editing in this area (see the WP:Child protection policy), and partly because they are convinced that you are no WP:Newbie. I suggested talking with you instead since there are researchers who debate whether or not watching child pornography increases or decreases the rate of child sexual abuse. Editors have thus far listened to me regarding you because I am very much trusted in these topic areas. So if anything, your reporting me would likely get a lot more eyes on you in a critical way, and likely lead to you getting WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And if you or anyone else doubts my statement that "The vast majority of people who watch pornography, and especially in a habitual fashion, are boys and men.", I suggest you or that other person read up on the pornography literature, and the fact that research has consistently shown that teenage girls and women prefer romance novels or erotica to porn; this has been cited by some researchers as "men being more visual creatures" than women, and so on. This is not to state, however, that a lot of women don't watch porn; a lot of them do. But like this 2011 Time piece citing researchers states, "Women prefer stories to visual porn by a long shot. The most popular erotica for women is the romance novel. That has more punch than any other kind of erotica. The second most popular would be fan fiction. This is something that has really exploded on the Internet. These are stories written by amateurs, mostly women, about characters from pop culture, movies, books, etc." The source then goes on to explain the sex differences. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an immature flamewar with you Flyer22. That is not the function of the talk page. If you continue to say discriminatory things you will get reported. You have been warned. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Gender_discrimination if you are confused to what I am referencing. Thank you for complying with Wikipedia's core policies.Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And your assertion that I have been engaging in "discriminatory things" and your warning are misplaced, as I've already stated. Reporting on statistical facts is not sexism. My comments are supported by the literature; it's as simple as that. The warning I gave you, however, is not misplaced. That WP:Block I spoke of will very likely be finding you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disorganized structure of article

I would like to organize this articles into pro-correlation and anti-correlation studies/arguments to make it more readable. Right now it seems disjointed with how its just an arbitrary list of studies. What are peoples' thoughts on this action?Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What anti-correlation studies/arguments are you referring to? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically all the arguments and studies cited in this article fall into one of two camps. Either they suggest that viewing child porn increases criminal behavior or they suggest child porn decreases criminal behavior. When I say anti-correlation i mean inverse correlation. So if a study says that individuals that view child porn commit more criminal acts against children that would be a direct correlation and if the study says that individuals that view child porn actually commit less criminal acts that would be an inverse correlation between viewing childporn and criminal sex acts against children. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the article as that black and white, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone else weigh in on this issue? I will wait for feed back from four other users before making any organizational changes. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The structure is not very good, I will grant, the way it divides sources into a series of sections. Don't mess with it yet though, Boilingorangejuice. I want to read it through more carefully.Legitimus (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the changes to the article, Legitimus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job on cleaning up this article! That was really fast. It's way more organized now. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I need GF

@ 2A00:F28:FF06:5149:5C9C:7B3C:E14E:2A5C (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Falsification of quotes

I've reverted[1] an edit from September 2023[2], some of the changes could be seen as good faith but the changes to quotes can't be seen in the same way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)