| |
2 of 6: Is artificial CP moral? Might it lead to more harm? This item is part of a special series of posts. A six-part series on child pornography and artificial child pornography, aka drawings, stories, etc. This series covers:
1. The morality of child pornography (this post).
2. The morality of artificial child pornography.
3. To the best of our data, what effect do both of those have on offending?
4. A story from someone recently arrested for possession of child pornography: how he got into it, how it affected his life, what happened next.
5. Two former users of child pornography talk about how they stopped viewing it, and their feelings now that they're off of it.
6. My own experiences with artificial child pornography and the role it's played in my life. This article is the second in the series. Death and taxes are supposed to be the two constants in the world. To that, I might add "teenagers trying to find ways to masturbate." Just browsing Quora, these questions pop up, asked by teenagers who feel a compulsion but don't know what to do or what's ok to do.
That's hard enough on its own, but if you grew up like me, you feel all the desires a teenager feels, but they're... well, they're about kids, and you have to make choices about what's moral. You feel the human urge to get off, but how?
Some people find real child pornography, either convincing themselves that it's moral or else hating themselves even as they watch it. (Or, in some cases both—human minds are complicated places.) Some limit themselves to private fantasies, or to pictures of kids posted on Instagram or in news stories. But there's another way: artwork, what I call "artificial child pornography," that depicts sexual situations but doesn't involve real kids at all. What are we to make of it? Is it moral? Might it lead to more harm?
And in general, are there any appropriate sexual releases for pedophiles?
In my last post, I admitted my greatest shame: that I am jealous of those who view child pornography. While I don't view real cp myself, I found artificial child pornography when I was early in my teens, and I've been viewing it ever since. I even write erotic stories. Should that be another source of shame for me? Might I even be putting others in danger by viewing it?
One of the projects of this blog is to give some guidance for moral thinking, both to young pedophiles who need to figure out how to live their lives, and to the rest of society who needs to figure out how we fit in. Understanding sexual release is a key part of that project. I've made the choice to view artificial child pornography, and I want to share why, and why I think it's (probably) OK.
What is artificial child pornography, anyway?
There's been artificial pornography for millennia. Drawings, erotic stories, even the idle "if I could, I'd..." chat with a friend. Recently, computer renders have been added to the mix, and maybe dolls, too. The truth is that smut has been around forever, and only with the invention of photography and video recording did "real" pornography even become an option.
All this same material exists, but focused on children. No real kids are involved, just drawings or computer renders or stories from someone's imagination. I won't lie or sugarcoat it: if you're not aroused by it, you'll be disgusted by it. Like with real child pornography, some people have both reactions: they use it and simultaneously hate themselves for using it.
As one example of these conflicting feelings, there are all kinds of codes of conduct on the sites that have artificial child pornography. Sometimes the word "pedophile" is forbidden and they don't even refer to the characters as "boys" or "girls" but rather "shotas" and "lolis," to emphasize they're not real. ("Shota" and "loli" are terms for drawn boys or drawn girls.) Many viewers say they aren't even attracted to real boys or girls.
You might be surprised to learn that many of the people who view artificial child pornography are not pedophiles (or at least don't believe themselves to be). Some are attracted to power differentials in sex; others to taboo elements in general (and this is as taboo as it gets); still others have no desire to have sex with a child, but want to be the child in a sexual relationship. That last one is extremely common. Others say they just find it appealing and arousing although they have no attraction to real children. It's hard for me to imagine viewing this stuff without the attraction, but there are a lot of different people out there. I hope to explore this in another post.
But is it legal?
The short answer is... it's complicated. It depends on where you live. In a lot of places the law is murky. Also, I am _definitely_ not turning my blog about pedophilia into legal advice.
Wikipedia has an extensive page about this, although my sense is that it's incomplete and possibly inaccurate. Regardless, in the US, there seems little push to go after artificial child pornography; the focus is (correctly!) much more on actual sexual abuse or pornography involving real children. Nearly every prosecution involves real child pornography.
So, is it legal? That's complicated.
Should it be? That's complicated too.
I mentioned in the first post of this series that one argument people sometimes use for the legitimacy of child pornography is that it doesn't harm anyone once it's been produced, and I explained why I disagree with that view. But it's different when it comes to artificial child pornography.
Unlike with the real stuff, there's no one being victimized with the production of the artwork or its viewings. No one's private moments are being exposed. No one's rights are being violated. There's no problem with the direct effects of the pornography itself.
What you might worry about are the indirect effects.
Does viewing it mean people will hurt kids more?
Research into pedophilia is underfunded and it's very hard to get non-offending pedophiles to step forward and participate in a research study. We're worried about being exposed. Thus, there are virtually no good studies on those who don't offend and what effect artificial child pornography has on them.
Let me give you two arguments. If I can, I'm going to try to convince you that artificial child pornography is harmful, and then I'll try to convince you that it's not.
Argument #1: Why artificial child pornography encourages harming kids. Viewing artificial child pornography is obviously harmful. It's a gateway to doing things that are much worse. By stimulating pedophiles, you reinforce neural pathways around sex with kids and normalize the behaviors. Eventually, masturbating to drawn images just isn't enough anymore. Pedophiles will move to viewing real child pornography, and then to abusing real kids.
A friend of mine avoids artificial child pornography for exactly this reason. He's described himself as somewhat hypersexual, and he wrote to me that viewing artificial child pornography is like desperately craving hamburgers but being allergic. Instead, you stand outside a restaurant and smell the burgers cooking. Of course that doesn't cut it, and it just makes you crave them even more. For him, viewing artificial child pornography is bad; it increases his desires, and he feels it would make him more likely to offend, so he avoids it.
Argument #2: Why artificial child pornography keeps kids safe. Viewing artificial child pornography obviously helps pedophiles to control their urges. Being repressed and holding it all in leaves people unstable, hating themselves, and more likely to lose control. Providing stable, regular, reliable (and moral) places to release and to come to terms with their sexuality lets them go about their lives knowing they can have that release without pent up frustration.
When my friend wrote to me with his hamburger analogy, I came back with an analogy of my own. For me, artificial child pornography is more like if I craved milk, and instead I drank almond milk. It's not as good, but it's good enough. It's reasonably tasty, it provides all the nutrients I need, and it's easier for me to keep from drinking real milk because I have an alternative that does well enough for me. I know I can go back to it whenever I want milk.
If you're looking for a single answer to this question, I won't be able to provide it for you. There just isn't good enough research. In my next post, I'll take a deep dive into what statistics there are, to see what we might be able to figure out.
For me, I've been looking at this stuff since I was a teenager. I'm now in my 30's. In all that time, if anything, I would say that my sexual desire has decreased. My urges to look at child pornography have actually gone down. I've become more comfortable in my own skin and felt less conflict over my attraction. I can't claim for sure that artificial child pornography made this any better (or worse), but it sure feels like it.
What I can say for myself is this. I keep referring back to my jealousy at those who view child pornography. I believe that viewing artificial child pornography has reduced that jealousy. It's given me an outlet, it's given me friends, it's given me a place I know I can go for a release. It makes me feel less... well, frankly, less like I'm "missing out." It gives me a way to get a similar feeling without hurting anyone. I consider that a huge positive in my life.
There's another function artificial cp served for me. Especially growing up, I tried to limit how much time I spent on my pedophilia. In particular, I tried not to masturbate too frequently. Being able to have a reliable place to go and "get it over with" was really helpful to managing my time. It helped me keep from having ongoing fantasies.
I've spoken to lots of others who are similar. They view loli or shota, or read stories, or whatever, and it's a part of their routine. It helps them feel less repressed, and gives them an outlet where they can discuss sexual fantasies without involving real kids. It even gives them a routine around their sexual release. For these people, my guess is that the availability of artificial cp decreases the likelihood of child abuse.
But... you knew there was a "but," right?
This isn't true for everyone. It depends on the person. There are some, like in the hamburger analogy, where artificial child pornography is triggering or encourages their sexual desire too much. I've met a lot more people where it's helpful rather than harmful, but my sample is biased. Each of us has to understand how artificial child pornography affects us and make a responsible choice.
In my ideal world, artificial child pornography would be seen as one appropriate tool for pedophiles (and others) to deal with their urges. It would be something you could safely talk to a therapist about (without fear of being outed or reported) so they could help you decide if it will help or hurt your self control.
Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. Each of us has to make our own choice, and decide for ourselves if it's harmful. I believe (without great evidence) that for most people, the release of artificial child pornography helps them come to terms with their desires without harming kids. In general, I think its availability gives an important outlet that doesn't hurt anyone. I think what limited research there is backs me up on this, but it's murky. What I hope you'll get out of this is not "oh, obviously artificial child pornography causes/doesn't cause harm," but rather, "there are serious arguments to be made on both sides."
Whew, that was a long response. Let's do some shorter replies.
Does it normalize sex with children?
It hasn't for me.
Again, each person's response is different. But when there's child pornography out there, the effect of anime-style kids or computer renders or stories (where there are usually disclaimers about how this is all fictional) seems minimal at best. Yes, it displays something we'd rather not see displayed, but so do police procedurals, all kinds of media glorifying criminals or vigilantism, people who role play adult rape, and lots of adult stories and pornography.
Of all of these, the place with the clearest community norms that "this is not real" is... the place that's full of pedophiles.
Is artificial cp objectifying?
To me, at least, this has always been one of the most persuasive arguments. One of the concerns raised about pornography in general, and more broadly, the way men discuss women, is objectification. Does viewing artificial cp, talking about it, or thinking about it lead to objectifying children?
All I can tell you is my own experience. The artwork I view is absolutely objectifying, or at least much of it is. But it's also fake, and I know it's fake. It doesn't make me view kids that way. Much like the previous question of normalizing child abuse, there's a clear boundary between fantasy and reality. (Possibly why sites insist on calling them "loli" and "shota.")
Is that good enough? I don't know. But if you think artificial cp should be banned because it's objectifying, surely you would think that for regular porn too. After all, artificial cp is clearly fake, and regular porn has real people—it must be _more_ objectifying by a lot! Even if the things artificial cp portrays are disturbing, I don't think its consumers end up objectifying children in reality.
What society do we want?
Another objection: maybe we just don't want a society where people like to view this stuff!
This makes a lot of sense to me. There are a lot of things I'd also rather not exist in the world, and I'd like a world without artificial cp too if removing it didn't harm people. The truth is, I'd rather a world where these fantasies don't exist. However, they do exist and it's not so simple.
Do I want to deny people like me a release that doesn't hurt people in order to make artificial cp illegal? Not really. That seems to unnecessarily harm me. Some people argue "kill all pedophiles!" I don't want society to murder people who haven't harmed others.
There are lots of things I'd like to be gone from the world, but getting rid of those things often makes the world worse for many other people, or infringes on their rights. I'd love to be rid of anti-vaxxers but I'm not about to do anything drastic, and I'm not willing to compromise my principles to build the society I "want."
But isn't it just wrong?
Well, I'm not a moral philosopher, so take my responses with a grain of salt! (If you want a lovely discussion of morality, go watch The Good Place. Seriously, it's a great show, and genuinely important to society now. Of course, if I had to guess, I'm not the person whose recommendation they'll put on the DVD boxed set...)
In my personal belief system, thoughts are not intrinsically good or bad. They're just thoughts. If there's no harm, if artificial cp gives a release, if it gives a safe outlet, I don't think there's anything wrong about viewing artificial child pornography.
I understand how not everyone shares that opinion. Depending on your upbringing, your morality, or your religion, you might say that even if no one is harmed, the thoughts themselves are still intrinsically wrong. If you believe that we should be punished for our thoughts, or that imagining actions of abuse is intrinsically bad, then obviously artificial child pornography is bad.
Your morality is your choice, but let me explain why I don't share your view. Most things that are "wrong" are bad because they harm other people. Rape, robbery, murder, and yes, child abuse all hurt people. Even much tinier wrongs, such as speeding or littering or leaving the light on when you exit a room... those all cause some harm, perhaps because of risk to others or because they harm the environment or something.
Of course, there are things that are considered wrong that don't fit this mold. For example, I think most people would agree that cheating on your spouse is bad even if there's no chance they ever find out. You might argue that lying is bad even if it is done to save someone's feelings. If you are religious, then blasphemy is intrinsically bad. However, these examples all involve either dishonesty or a breach against God.
Artificial cp, and the very desires I have, are repulsive to a lot of people. The acts that are portrayed are awful. I can't deny that, but does that make them intrinsically wrong? There is no victim, and there is no one being deceived. Besides, lots of desires have been or are considered repulsive, but we realize that when they don't harm other people, folks should be able to engage in them.
When I view artificial cp, I still don't want to act out what it shows me, and I'm not making any plans to do so. I'm exploring a fantasy, getting off on it, and finding a release. No one is harmed, deceived, or victimized in any way. If I view it without wanting to act it out, is that intrinsically wrong? I don't think so. You might. There are plenty of pedophiles who agree with you and avoid the stuff for that reason.
I can't tell you what to find intrinsically moral; I don't know your beliefs, your experiences, or your religion. What I can do is ask you to be clear-eyed: make sure you know why you think it's bad without making a snap judgement. Take a moment to reflect.
And finally, even if you think viewing it is wrong, there's one more thing I would ask you to consider. Is your belief, your certainty in its wrongness, enough to generalize to other people and their actions? I don't think we should form our government or laws to force others to conform to individual belief systems. If something is wrong, that wrongness has to generalize to nearly everyone. If it's not harmful to anyone, is this a case where one moral system should be imposed on others? Maybe yes. I know this isn't the majority opinion. I'm just asking you to think about it for a hard issue.
Where I land
This is a messy post, and it took me a long time to write. I asked a lot of questions, and I answered very few of them. So much depends on how you view things, but hopefully I got you thinking, just a bit.
I asked at the beginning of this post if I feel ashamed of viewing artificial child pornography. The answer is emphatically no.
Maybe that surprises you, but it shouldn't. It doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't make me any more likely to offend. It's not a sign of low willpower. Human sexuality is natural, and if I ran from my sexuality I think I'd be a lot worse off.
Artificial cp gives me a safe release, a way of expressing myself, and a way of finding friends. It lets me lead the rest of my life productively and happily. I don't think I should be any more ashamed of it than someone who views regular porn. In fact, I'm proud of the (erotic) stories I've written; they've helped lots of people to dive into fantasy for a little bit and find their own release.
That doesn't mean it's right for everyone. I stand by what I said: if it triggers someone, if they have trouble distinguishing it from reality, if their fantasies become too vivid, they need to stop. But for a lot of us, it's important, and brings us peace, and gives us an outlet.
There's one important discussion we haven't had, and it's a little bit less clear. I gave you some nice stories about if artificial child pornography makes pedophiles more likely to offend, but if it does encourage offending, every premise of this blog post is wrong. I talked about my own experiences and those of friends, but, as my friends in research like to say, "the plural of anecdote is not data." Next time, we'll dive into this question, and what little messy research there is. You can find the original article, along with reader comments (and the opportunity to leave your own) at Leonard's blog. | |
