Link between CSAM possession offenses and contact offenses

Ok, so this Wiki article discusses link between “Child Pornography” better known as CSAM and contact sexual abuse.

IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that people used CSAM as a substitute for contact offenses, DO NOT USE THIS ARGUMENT TO ATTEMPT TO LEGALIZE CSAM. CSAM HAS VICTIMS. If it is true, than it would however be a very strong reason to limit CSAM laws to only apply to images/videos of real children.

Indeed as utilitarians, if the substitute hypothesis is true, we ought to push very hard for the Legalization of ALL depictions of fictional characters!

Three main arguments:

  • Viewing child pornography increases the likelihood of an individual committing child sexual abuse. Reasons include that the pornography normalizes and/or legitimizes the sexual interest in children, as well as that pornography might eventually cease to satisfy the user.

  • Viewing child pornography decreases the likelihood of an individual committing child sexual abuse. Reasons are that the pornography acts as a substitute for actual offenses. Simulated child pornography is suggested as an alternative so that real children are not harmed.

  • There is no correlation between viewing child pornography and acts of child sexual abuse, or that available evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions at all.

SO WHAT IS THE TRUTH? I want empirical evidence that is NOT motivated by emotion. I am a hardcore utilitarian. I want empirical evidence.

Facts > Emotions

It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims. Even in this area of concern no “clear and present danger” exists for the suppression of [sexually explicit materials]. There is no evidence that pornography is intended or likely to produce “imminent lawless action” (see Brandenberg v. Ohio, 1969).

“The Effects of Pornography: an international perspective” by Milton Diamond, Ph.D. 1999.


There are many threads relating to this subject on this forum you may want to go through sometime.
For the record, there isn’t a shred of evidence which proves there is a link, in-fact it may not even be possible to prove a link.

There is evidence relating to the Czech Republic showing that CP reduces crime, although it is unknown if simulated materials are realistic enough for this purpose and studies relating to that seem to deduce it being neutral, but neither negative or positive. There is little research there and likely never will be as search engines drown this content out and push people to CP instead.

Someone did show me a chart recently showing that sexual assaults did jump in Japan (although not by much, simply by 25% on some charts when possession of CP but not lolicon was banned), so it would show there is a gap between efficacy, although Japan’s crime rates are still comparatively low to hells like America and the United Kingdom.

From a free speech perspective, it does not make sense to ban something, simply because someone may be offended by it’s existence. Many laws against it are simply from a sense that “something must be done about it”.

From a technological standpoint, technologies may get better, but it is likely legislative hurdles will stop it right in it’s tracks, they have already begun to. I wouldn’t mind contributing to technologies which mean people don’t end up looking at CP, but I would prefer not to put my own safety in danger in the middle of a moral panic.

From a simple survey of some people who look at legal content with real people, they say it is nowhere near realistic enough for them to use. It seems to vary from person to person. I also know for a fact (from various people in the community who have deal with such people) that quite a few people who look at CP do not find simulated content anywhere near realistic enough, although some of them do.

All of this aside, someone could have a debate over whether CP should be legal (most people would largely lean towards no), but it is not entirely black or white. You may want to look into how you could prevent crimes without making one or the other bop up and down without creating a police state or Brave New World mind control solutions.

There is absolutely no reason to ban fictional content. If you talk to practically anyone, the thought of it making crimes go up is utterly bizarre, except in the mainstream media where it is the norm.

I’m slightly bitter as I have seen all too much drama lately relating to this and that. There are certainly some promising technologies on the horizon, although you have to make it through the big hurdles ahead of you right now. Sorry I couldn’t simply tell you that we can fix the problem here and now through a quick shot.

There are also some problems where over-zealous anti-CP measures (which are really just get rid of anyone who looks suspicious or posts suspicious content) ends up purging all fictional content. This could lead to some very bad effects where people will mingle with the CP dwellers to get their fix as those are the only safe spaces left. It is also why I am not amused by apparent absolutist purge attempts. It is better for a few guilty to go free than to purge everyone. You may make it more likely that people report the CP dwellers too, if reporting someone doesn’t risk you getting deplatformed yourself. Less people may look at fictional content, but looking at fictional content isn’t the problem here, if your argument is that someone hates the idea of people on the internet watching videos of them, it may make the remainder less likely to report crimes right in-front of them like with SESTA / FOSTA. If it is a new image, this may mean that you never become aware of a crime, which you may have been able to stop in a timely fashion by running voice recognition or face recognition.

1 Like