Swedish Courts: Imaginary Children Aren't Real

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

Sanity hasn't left this planet just yet. Thank god. Nice to see he made it out unscathed.

 

[BrotherRool]

snip

Kudos for going and trying to find some research. Do you happen to have the links to the studies you looked up though? The only way to ever really judge the validity of a study is with a look at the methodology and, if possible, the raw data to see if there are any flaws, or if maybe the data itself points in other directions the researchers didn't look at, so it's always useful to know where you got the quotes for those interested in going back to the source.

As it is, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how they could determine consumption of pornography is a predictor of future sexual assault, particularly if they're starting with a person convicted of sexual assault in any form and working back. I'd imagine many of them turned to porn to satisfy their urges before committing their crimes. Meanwhile there are literally millions of people who watch the stuff who will never be accused of or convicted of sexual assault. So I'd be curious to see the methodology they used in coming to their conclusions.

The studies citated are
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/K/V/
Mitchell, M. and Jolley, J. (2001). Research Design Explained (4th Ed) New York:Harcourt.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/C/K/W/
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/00arsr11.pdf
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/2/2/196

I have to admit I haven't done any research into seeing how valid they are

 

[BrotherRool]

Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself. Paraphilias as they are known aren't chosen actions and are related to sexual attraction whereas sex offences are the actual abusing of a child or looking at child pornography, which I think we'll all agree is a choice. Strangely enough because of my time on the internet I've known several paedophiles and the regular consensus is that they're against having sexual intercourse or anything similar with children because it harms the child, and the majority that I've spoken to in fact dislike the fact that they're paedophiles.

Sorry, I didn't mean to label like that. It must be a terrible thing to deal with and there should be huge respect for the people who manage to overcome it

Indeed, though they're part of the reason why I feel the need to argue this so much. Most of the ones I've spoken to have stated that being able to look at porn of fictional child-like characters has actually helped them in controlling their urges, as it gives an outlet for their sexual desires in which no harm comes to children. My experience doesn't constitute a study, however, so I can hardly use that to argue in defence of them, hence why I'm having a difficult time arguing this now.

Oh okay, well whilst it's not scientifically valid, and sometimes it's hard to self-evaluate yourself properly, you definitely started this with much more experience and reasoning than I did.

I've found some articles pro you that are statistical evidence, the rate of child sex abuse in Japan appears to have dropped after they removed an explicit materials ban.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm

EDIT: Also the beginning of that report is very interesting to read. I'm going to conclude that this issue is too complex, with people who've trained in the area unable to reach consensus so I will have no opinion either way until there does seem to be consensus. Although given the controversy of the topic that might be a long time off

 

[Enthuril]

Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself. Paraphilias as they are known aren't chosen actions and are related to sexual attraction whereas sex offences are the actual abusing of a child or looking at child pornography, which I think we'll all agree is a choice. Strangely enough because of my time on the internet I've known several paedophiles and the regular consensus is that they're against having sexual intercourse or anything similar with children because it harms the child, and the majority that I've spoken to in fact dislike the fact that they're paedophiles.

Sorry, I didn't mean to label like that. It must be a terrible thing to deal with and there should be huge respect for the people who manage to overcome it

Indeed, though they're part of the reason why I feel the need to argue this so much. Most of the ones I've spoken to have stated that being able to look at porn of fictional child-like characters has actually helped them in controlling their urges, as it gives an outlet for their sexual desires in which no harm comes to children. My experience doesn't constitute a study, however, so I can hardly use that to argue in defence of them, hence why I'm having a difficult time arguing this now.

Oh okay, well whilst it's not scientifically valid, and sometimes it's hard to self-evaluate yourself properly, you definitely started this with much more experience and reasoning than I did.

I've found some articles pro you that are statistical evidence, the rate of child sex abuse in Denmark appears to have dropped after they removed an explicit materials ban.
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm

I think the fact is that either way a ban on such materials is not the right way to go about it, as you're effectively censoring art that does not actually do anything to directly harm them. It would be like banning movies with violence in them because some people are violent. The fact is as well that it's extremely difficult if not impossible to prove a direct correlation as there are too many other factors in play. You can only say what is likely to be the case, which is why the studies are varied in results. Also I think it's best to keep in mind the idea of bias in these studies, because few people would be happy if a study was published actually supporting what most people consider to be child pornography.

 

[BrotherRool]

I think the fact is that either way a ban on such materials is not the right way to go about it, as you're effectively censoring art that does not actually do anything to directly harm them. It would be like banning movies with violence in them because some people are violent. The fact is as well that it's extremely difficult if not impossible to prove a direct correlation as there are too many other factors in play. You can only say what is likely to be the case, which is why the studies are varied in results. Also I think it's best to keep in mind the idea of bias in these studies, because few people would be happy if a study was published actually supporting what most people consider to be child pornography.

I mean in no circumstances is actual child pornography ever going to be legalised, regardless of what the studies show, because never mind the affect on the perpetrator, children by definition don't have the responsibility to take responsibility for their actions. So it's really only fictionalised issues we're dealing with here, which by itself is something not really explored in these studies

In that case and the case of the inconclusiveness of the evidence ... I don't know which way to err. I think it's pretty easy for a judge to work out the difference between art and fictional child pornography so that's not an issue either. It feels wrong to have people consuming this sort of image, but if we can't decide wouldn't that be a ban based on no evidence?

I'm glad I'm not responsible for these sort of decisions

 

[Shoqiyqa]

In a prison interview conducted by Gail Dines, rape of a prepubescent child followed "habitual" consumption of child porn "within six months," although the men were previously "horrified at the idea".[8]

The implication is that they were habitually consuming child porn even though they were horrified by it, and it was the porn that made them want to do it. Ummm ... anybody here find the idea off a woman sucking her own faeces off a man's penis horrific but still habitually "consume" porn of exactly that, or does that niche porn cater to people who already like the idea?

However, a metaanalysis by Hald, et al (2010)[11] suggests that there is a link between consumption of violent pornography and rape-supportive attitudes in certain populations of men, particularly when moderating variables are taken into consideration.

Without reading the metaanalysis, I can't say what I think of their consideration of moderating variables, but "a link between" can easily be correlation without demonstrating causation. There is correlation between birthday parties and long life, but I wouldn't take that to imply that having birthday parties helps you live longer [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/die-birthday-report-article-1.1095279]. Again, maybe they did look into it, but I think it'd be very hard to compare data from past and present, given that availability of pornography, attitudes towards it, honesty about it and the questions asked will have varied a lot over the last 30 years or so, never mind the last 200.

What do they mean by "certain populations" anyway? 60-year-old Taliban-supporters? Leeds United Football Club season ticket holders? Men with the surname Phelps? Ambidextrous sociology graduates? Registered US Republican Party members born in Ohio between 1961 and 1970 and now living in Montana? The local under-15 Australian Rules Football squad? Subscribers to loligurobbs.org?

Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."[18]

I don't think "She wanted it and she liked it" is a new defence. I just went looking for the study, and the first search result turned out to be a multi-page illustration of "appeal to emotion" in place of argument, useful as an example of not making an argument well but hardly informative. The second, Pornography and Sexual Violence [http://www.vawnet.org/sexual-violence/print-document.php?doc_id=418&find_type=web_desc_AR], seems a little more level-headed. It's intro says this: "After two decades of research, there is little consensus, not only as to that answer but as to definitions of terms, appropriate methods of investigation, or even how to frame the question." Scrolling down less than halfway, I foudn this:

Consumption and Effects

Virtually all reviews of the research on the potential connections between pornography and sexual violence suggest there is evidence for some limited effects on male consumers but no way to reach definitive conclusions. If one is looking for direct causal links in a traditional science model, this is likely to be a permanent assessment; it is difficult to imagine research methods that could provide more compelling data and conclusions. However, if we expand the scope of the inquiry, other insights are possible (Boyle, 2000).
Three basic types of studies have emerged in the search for an answer to the question about the relationship between pornography and violence, two of which are within the traditional science model and of limited value. First, a few large-scale studies have investigated the correlation of the availability of pornography to rates of violence, with mixed results (Kutchinsky, 1991; Jaffee & Strauss, 1987). The complexity of confounding variables and the imprecision of measures make these studies of extremely limited value.
Second, experimental studies in the laboratory have been constructed to investigate directly the question of causal links. A typical study might expose groups of subjects to different types or levels of sexually explicit material for comparison to a control group that views non-sexual material. Researchers look for significant differences between the groups on a measure of, for example, male attitudes toward rape. From such controlled testing -- measuring the effect of an experimental stimulus (exposure to pornography) on a dependent variable (attitudes toward women or sex) in randomly selected groups --researchers make claims, usually tentative, about causal relationships.
One of the most thorough reviews of the experimental literature by leading researchers in the field concluded, ""if a person has relatively aggressive sexual inclinations resulting from various personal and/or cultural factors, some pornography exposure may activate and reinforce associated coercive tendencies and behaviors"" (Malamuth, Addison, & Koss, 2000, p. 81). The authors also pointed out that ""high pornography use is not necessarily indicative of high risk for sexual aggression"" (p. 79). Another large-scale literature review also concluded that men predisposed toward violence are most likely to show effects from viewing pornography and that men not predisposed are unlikely to show effects (Seto, Maric, & Barbarre, 2001, p. 46).
While this experimental work sometimes offers interesting hints at how pornography works in regard to men's sexual behavior, it suffers from several serious problems that limit its value. First, the measures of men's attitudes toward women, such as answers to questions about the appropriate punishment for rapists, do not necessarily tell us anything about men's willingness to rape. Men often view their sexually aggressive or violent behavior not as aggression or violence but as ""just sex."" In other words, men who rape often condemn rape, which they see as something other men do (Koss, 1988). Also, sexual behavior is a complicated mix of cognitive, emotional, and physical responses, and the answers one gives to a survey may or may not accurately reflect that mix.

. According to the study, child molesters indicated "significantly more" exposure to pornography than rapists in adulthood.

Again, correlation, cause or effect? If we assume everybody is distributed within a multi-axial graph of sexual desire, with axes for violence (yes, folks, we have axes for violence here), number of partners, power dynamics each way and a lot of other things for every ethnic group, age and hair colour ... which is going to be one hell of a lot of axes if you count Romany, Slav, Angle, Saxon, Anglo-Saxon, Celt, Pict, Norse, Dane, Frank, Teuton, Breton, Basque, Turk, Hellenic, Hopi, Apache, Navajo, Comanche, Arapahoe, Hittite, Samarite, Canaanite, Farsi, Armenian, Pashtun, Dari, Hindi, Tamil, Matabele, Zulu, Shona, Shoshone, San, Maori and so on and so forth and 0-1, 1-4, 5-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-17, 18-20, 21-25, 26-35, 36-45 and 46+ and ... well, all the hair dyes on the entire shelf in Boots ... and axes for awareness of society's norms, for how much someone cares about them and for self-control ...

Have I lost everyone yet, or is someone still with me?

... it becomes clear that "child-molestor" refers to someone from an envelope of a very complicated shape with low regard for societal norms, low awareness of those norms and/or low self-control and high desire for at least some members of at least some of the vast array of groups that count as children. It should also be clear that there will be people with high self-control, awareness of "the rules" and regard for them who are not child-molestors because they are, for want of a better term, too nice to act on their desires, and in terms of activity, of potential harm, they are mixed in with the people who are not child-molestors because their sexual desire for the under-13 groups (13-17 are teenagers, not children) is extremely, or what we might call normally, low.

Likewise, a rapist of victims of any other age is someone in a bad part of the graph. If you simplify things and ignore some of the axes, you lose track of something, like whether someone is guilty of having tender, gentle sex with a consenting 15-yr-11-month-5-day-old in a long-term relationship or of bludgeoning a 25-yr-old stranger near-unconscious and taking her by force in an alley. Legally, both are rape. You may just find a 20-yr-11-month-5-day-old still happily with the guy who "raped" her five years after the fact and not feeling at all harmed, though.

It would be wrong to assume that everyone who finds an idea attractive wants to act on it. Imagine Rikku with a strap-on and Pinkie Pie pleasuring each other ... or don't, if you'd rather not. If you liked the idea, are you now inclined to go out and get some slender blonde teenager in a yellow bikini to act out those scenes with a real pony dyed pink? It seems unlikely, and it could be unlikely because you know society would condemn the act, because you don't think you have the resources required or because you don't think it'd be good for the girl or the pony and you prefer your real-life sex to be harmless to all participants.

Rather than asking whether pornography causes rape, we can ask how pornography helps make rape inviting.
Based both on the lab research and such interviews, Diana Russell has argued that pornography is a causal factor in the way that it can: (1) predispose some males to desire rape or intensify this desire; (2) undermine some males' internal inhibitions against acting out rape desires; (3) undermine some males' social inhibitions against acting out rape desires; and (4) undermine some potential victims' abilities to avoid or resist rape (Russell, 1998, p. 121).

Note the word "some" in each case, and the narrow definition of the effect.

According to the study "Pornography Use as a Risk Marker for an Aggressive Pattern of Behavior Among Sexually Reactive Children and Adolescents", sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), also referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, "may be more vulnerable and likely to experience damaging effects from pornography use." According to the study, the SRCAs who used pornography were "more likely" to display aggressive behaviors than their nonusing counterparts

See "Testosterone poisoning," on Wiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_poisoning] or Urban [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=testosterone%20poisoning&defid=3285099], for a crude answer, or the bigthink [http://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/testosterone-poisoning-isnt-what-you-think] page for a rather more sensible discussion of it:

Christoph Eisenegger and his colleagues had 121 women play the ultimatum game. Those who received testosterone beforehand were more fair and less egotistical than those who got a placebo.

Actually, there was one group of women who did behave according to stereotype, taking a much more "in-your-face'' stance in the talks. These were the women who thought they had been given testosterone.

Two conclusions: First, this is evidence for Eisenegger's more careful definition of testosterone's effect. He believes it's not a one-note promoter of aggression and lust, but rather a spur to competition for status. The experiment was designed to distinguish between the two theories: if testosterone just impels humans to act like rutting elks, then it should induce bad behavior at the bargaining table. But if it promotes status-seeking, then extra testosterone should make people want to win the game (with skillful, self-restraining effort) not burn down the casino. And that turned out to be what the study found.

What counts as status and success among adolescent males? See rap and James Bond for your answers.

So yes although it's not conclusive there is a huge body of evidence that perusual of pornography leads to increases and rape and child molesting.

It's a huge body you might accidentally go right through like The Juggernaut through an internal wall if you run at it with a scientist behind you though, eh? There are some solid pine struts in there but that's a whole lot of plasterboard.

 

[Enthuril]

I think the fact is that either way a ban on such materials is not the right way to go about it, as you're effectively censoring art that does not actually do anything to directly harm them. It would be like banning movies with violence in them because some people are violent. The fact is as well that it's extremely difficult if not impossible to prove a direct correlation as there are too many other factors in play. You can only say what is likely to be the case, which is why the studies are varied in results. Also I think it's best to keep in mind the idea of bias in these studies, because few people would be happy if a study was published actually supporting what most people consider to be child pornography.

I mean in no circumstances is actual child pornography ever going to be legalised, regardless of what the studies show, because never mind the affect on the perpetrator, children by definition don't have the responsibility to take responsibility for their actions. So it's really only fictionalised issues we're dealing with here, which by itself is something not really explored in these studies

In that case and the case of the inconclusiveness of the evidence ... I don't know which way to err. I think it's pretty easy for a judge to work out the difference between art and fictional child pornography so that's not an issue either. It feels wrong to have people consuming this sort of image, but if we can't decide wouldn't that be a ban based on no evidence?

I'm glad I'm not responsible for these sort of decisions

I think in this kind of issue, we have to take into account whether the image can be said to be just artwork. In the event where the image is obviously not real and bears no real resemblance to a real child it isn't exactly wrong to say that it's just art, and this is definitely the case with anime and manga-style characters. However, when we get to a point where it actually resembles a real child and is actually extremely realistic then it becomes a lot more of a problem, as it's obvious that it was made to simulate a real child.

 

[BrotherRool]

I think in this kind of issue, we have to take into account whether the image can be said to be just artwork. In the event where the image is obviously not real and bears no real resemblance to a real child it isn't exactly wrong to say that it's just art, and this is definitely the case with anime and manga-style characters. However, when we get to a point where it actually resembles a real child and is actually extremely realistic then it becomes a lot more of a problem, as it's obvious that it was made to simulate a real child.

Yeah that's what I mean. It's pretty easy to tell if something is being used for sexual gratification or not. We can tell the difference between a cherub and a picture of a cherub doing something less legal than floating around holding banners. So this case was easy enough to decide, but its hard with that non-exception case.

If it were just a matter of we're not sure if it makes things worse or not, then it's simple. We ban the bad stuff because we shouldn't take that chance on something which isn't fundamentally important. But the tricky thing is that there are arguments for it reducing and increasing. Any decision you make could negatively afffect children in the long run

 

[Treblaine]

The government doesn't get involved in other speculative motivators for crime. It doesn't ban film that glorify bank robbery, or war crimes, or murder, or theft. Hell, the entire hip-hop genre does so much to glorify gang violence that has a huge contributory factor in murder, theft, vandalism, assault and narcotics trade. We ban snuff films where people are ACTUALLY hurt, but not slasher films where no one is actually hurt.

When society allows slasher films to be distributed, this is NOT society saying that murdering teenagers with a chainsaw is acceptable. I think the problem is a lot of people seem to think the mere suggestion of sex with children is enough to set people off. No. I don't think that is true. Just like watching Hostel or Dexter doesn't somehow make more serial killers.

I don't see how banning loli manga strikes the right balance between protecting children from people who are actually likely to attack them, and spending huge amounts of police time arresting people for drawings. Hell, if it includes drawings, why not also writing? Even a diary entry. This isn't a slippery slope argument, this is the same principal at work.

The principal of a Just Society is that people are supposed to be imprisoned for their crimes, not for their whims that they don't act upon. Thoughts don't say what we will actually do because we have free will.

I don't think there is anyone here who has never been tempted to steal, never resisted the urge to assault someone, never mentioned killing someone (especially when talking about murderous dictators, or, paedophiles). So I don't think it would be fair making one a thought crime and not another. Hate speech does make the distinction in how it is used to intimidate the target, insult the wider public and specifically recruit others to a violent cause, it is broadcast, not private musings.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

... what I'm saying is letting people have access to child pornography might not reduce the number of peadophiles, but in fact increase them.

Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself.

See my recent post. What if the availability of hentai and manga and the like turns 10,000 people into hentai fans and 1 of them becomes a child-molestor as a result but it also diverts the attention of 1,000 existing potentially active paedophiles, of whom 700 settle for the safer activity of viewing it and forego molestations, thus reducing the number of children molested by several thousand? I'd rather have twice as many paedophiles around and none of them molesting children than have half as many but have all of them at it.

 

[Enthuril]

I think in this kind of issue, we have to take into account whether the image can be said to be just artwork. In the event where the image is obviously not real and bears no real resemblance to a real child it isn't exactly wrong to say that it's just art, and this is definitely the case with anime and manga-style characters. However, when we get to a point where it actually resembles a real child and is actually extremely realistic then it becomes a lot more of a problem, as it's obvious that it was made to simulate a real child.

Yeah that's what I mean. It's pretty easy to tell if something is being used for sexual gratification or not. We can tell the difference between a cherub and a picture of a cherub doing something less legal than floating around holding banners. So this case was easy enough to decide, but its hard with that non-exception case.

If it were just a matter of we're not sure if it makes things worse or not, then it's simple. We ban the bad stuff because we shouldn't take that chance on something which isn't fundamentally important. But the tricky thing is that there are arguments for it reducing and increasing. Any decision you make could negatively afffect children in the long run

Yeah, I guess so. I think that it's less if an image is being used for sexual gratification and more if the image is realistic though. It just reminds me of arguments I saw when TERA was released, because they had a childlike race wearing fairly revealing clothing. When you actually looked at it, their physical proportions were nothing like a real child's aside from the fact that they were short and flat chested, so it's fair to argue that it isn't harmful because their race does not realistically resemble a child. If they were to have something that looked exactly like a real human child in there it would be a problem as you could say it was made to actually look like a human child in revealing clothing.

 

[BrotherRool]

... what I'm saying is letting people have access to child pornography might not reduce the number of peadophiles, but in fact increase them.

Also, just to point out specifics, using the term Paedophiles to refer to sex offenders is horrifyingly incorrect. Paedophiles are people who have a sexual attraction to children, which is not a sex offence in itself.

See my recent post. What if the availability of hentai and manga and the like turns 10,000 people into hentai fans and 1 of them becomes a child-molestor as a result but it also diverts the attention of 1,000 existing potentially active paedophiles, of whom 700 settle for the safer activity of viewing it and forego molestations, thus reducing the number of children molested by several thousand? I'd rather have twice as many paedophiles around and none of them molesting children than have half as many but have all of them at it.

Sorry as Enthuril had already pointed out to me, I was misusing the word peadophile

 

[blackrave]

Who said those were drawings of little girls?
I know 2 girls who can be classified as "pedophile's dream"
One is 26, other is 22 years old
Both can pass for 14-15 years old (with specific clothes, a little make-up and right behavior)
So maybe those are "that" kind of women.
(ok, most probably not)

 

[Enthuril]

Who said those were drawings of little girls?
I know 2 girls who can be classified as "pedophile's dream"
One is 26, other is 22 years old
Both can pass for 14-15 years old (with specific clothes, a little make-up and right behavior)
So maybe those are "that" kind of women.

True, I feel that we need to pay more attention to what the drawings are representative of. It's the same argument as the Elins in TERA, which were made to look like fairies but because of that had a childlike image in some aspects.

 

[Dinosaur_Face]

That gave me a little faith in my country. I have always enjoyed his translations so it feels great that Lundström got rid of the charges (I hope I got that right.)

 

[Emiscary]

Congratulations are due to the Swedish court system for having realized the difference between fiction and reality.

Really, well done.

 

[Zefar]

The Swedish court system most likely is made up of old people. Old people who have quite radical thoughts about the subject. Most people would or have said something about this in Sweden. Even if they do not like such pictures it still doesn't hurt anyone.

I do wish though every old person in seat of power would be replaced with someone younger. Country might get fixed up better then.

 

[soren7550]

*reads article title*

Imaginary kids are not real?

You should probably tell the United States that next.

Damn you ninjas! Always ninja-ing.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

In other words, you can't have child pornography without an actual existing child that has actual existing rights being depicted. No victim, no crime.

He's still creepy though and wouldn't be my first choice for a babysitter.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Thank god for that. Would have been a dark day for Swedish justice if he had been found guilty for absolutely nothing.