The received wisdom for some time has been that looking at CP makes it more likely that a pedophile will offend against a child. When men who have committed a contact offense are interviewed, they often describe CP viewing as part of the process that led up to the offense. But there is no evidence of...

Ethan Edwards is the co-founder of Virtuous Pedophiles. Blog posts reflect his personal views, and are not statements from the organization.

The received wisdom for some time has been that looking at CP makes it more likely that a pedophile will offend against a child. When men who have committed a contact offense are interviewed, they often describe CP viewing as part of the process that led up to the offense. But there is no evidence of a causal relationship — whatever process was in motion that led to offending could have led to CP viewing as a side effect. There is no control group — it is entirely possible that a great many pedophiles view CP but never abuse a child.Milton Diamond and colleagues in a found that widespread availability of pornography in a society is associated with sex offending either going down or staying the same, and in particular that the availability of CP results in reduced or level sex offending against children. I discussed this in . Here there is no need for a control group. They are measuring the overall effect on the population itself — how many sex crimes are occurring in the society in question.

Earlier I gave a review of Michael Seto's "", . He criticizes the Diamond et al studies by noting that there has been a major drop in crime of all kinds during the past few decades. Although the causes are not understood, he says it is simpler to view the drop in child sex abuse as a part of that trend, and not associated with the availability of CP. This is a plausible alternative explanation, but it in no way settles the issue.

He raises in contrast evidence that CP increases offending against children.

Correlational studies are the formal version of the observation that increased CP viewing preceded offenses against children, and they suffer from the same flaw — they don't distinguish between a causal role for porn and the idea that a rising tendency to offend causes both porn viewing and the later offense.. Most studies consider the different case of ordinary, legal pornography and sex crimes against adults. Some are limited to the viewing of violent pornography (not pornography in general). Seto himself notes that very little CP that people download is violent.

Experimental studies expose people to pornography (not CP) in a lab setting and compare them to a control group. Some find that more porn exposure leads to various indirect measures of increased aggression. I see two major flaws with them. One is that when people are shown porn in a lab, there is the implicit message that the experimenter and the institution sponsoring the research both think that it is OK to view this material, and that may be the cause of any effects in contrast to the normal case where an individual decides himself whether to seek out such material. Another is that subjects who are aroused in a lab setting never proceed to orgasm and release in the experiment. The frustration of arousal without release might itself lead to aggressive attitudes.

A group performed of sex crimes in different regions of Norway correlated with when broadband internet became available. They attributed 3% of sex crimes to this availability. It's a good study, though it's only one and there are alternative explanations. Limitations aside, note that 3% is a rather small number. The effects observed in the correlational and experimental studies are also quite small.

Putting it all together, what's the effect of CP? We don't know for sure. On the one hand, some small portion of a 50% drop in sex crimes could be attributed to CP availability. On the other hand, other studies with their own flaws suggest an increase on the order of 3%.

To me the most relevant result is that CP viewing does not cause a dramatic rise in sex offenses against children. Freedom and liberty suggest that if something is not inherently harmful, criminal penalties should not even be considered unless it has a dramatic effect on crimes that do cause harm. CP production of course should remain a crime because of the harm to children in the production process. When it comes to virtual CP, there is no reason to prohibit either production or viewing.

We could also do better by adopting different rules for different people. If an individual finds viewing of CP to be putting him on the verge of offending, any sensible person would argue strenuously that he should stop. Seto's view is that CP viewing has a bad effect on at-risk individuals, not on average people. One solution he suggests is banning those who have been convicted of a contact offense from viewing virtual CP while allowing it for everyone else.

This content was taken from Ethan's longstanding blog, Celibate Pedophiles. Some of the titles and taglines have been edited for their inclusion at thepword.

You can see an earlier version of the blog at the wayback machine.

This content was removed from blogspot in 2020 because the platform banned the author's account, giving only a vague reason.

the p word is a collection of 307 articles, blogs, podcasts and threads in the voices of pedophiles and others who oppose adult child sexual contact and sexual exploitation of children. Despite our mainstream views, this content is frequently removed from social media or blog sites because openly discussing pedophile attractions or avowing them are not tolerated. Our side of the conversation continues here.

editor at the p word net | Except where stated, all images are AI and do not depict real people. | Download the whole site.

the iwf: comparing harm from viewing to other harms

why pro-contact pedophile arguments are bullshit (by a pedophile)

a note on the costs of self-hatred

ethan edwards

4 of 4. Considering narratives from the IWF about whether types of harm from CSEM can be different.

bly

Don't be suckered by those who say it's OK to act on it or those that claim it's inevitable you will.

leonard johnston

Empathy is important, especially for those who are most hated - even by me.

4 of 4. Considering narratives from the IWF about whether types of harm from CSEM can be different.

Don't be suckered by those who say it's OK to act on it or those that claim it's inevitable you will.

Empathy is important, especially for those who are most hated - even by me.