A question on Paedophilia Laws

Ok, a tricky and not very savoury topic but here it goes.

I've recently come across a news article from a few days ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/15/paedophiles-jailed-child-abuse-drawings

To sum up members from a disbanded paedophile group 'PIE' have been arrested for the possession of drawings, pictures and videos of child rape. Computer games involving similar activities were also found. This was was done under the 'Coroners and Justice Act 2009' the particular provision being: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2

Now just to be clear I do not condone the exploitation of children and believe there is no way to justify child molestation or the possession of child pornography which includes actual children used as models and that those who do such things need to be dealt with appropriately within the law.

My questions is however, if it were just drawings done from imagination or a computer game which is completely virtual and no child is actually harmed in the making of it should that be a cause for prosecution?

Keeping in mind that not all paedophiles are child molesters and that whether or not paedophilia is a sexuality or mental disorder etc. it seems they have little choice over the urges (if that is a suitable word?) they have. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for a regular, decent person who has these feelings knowing that they'll be forever socially shunned and condemned whether they act on these urges or not. Furthermore, not being able to express yourself can prove to be incredibly distressing and damaging which could come out in a very ugly way. So maybe the best and safest solution is to allow access to these drawings so they can have a thorough examination over them as a way for them to express themselves.

Maybe I'm weird but I can't really see much case for prosecution in that case so long as no child is actually harmed or exploited. If it is done in privacy maybe it's a case where the moral guardians and angry mob just keep their noses out. I wouldn't be comfortable with such drawings myself but I guess it really isn't my business.

I have heard some objections such as how this would be regulated so we can be sure no children are actually used for it and a less convincing one that maybe seeing this drawings would influence them to actually act out their fantasies.

I'm just curious what you guys think. I have my own views, but I would appreciate it if you have anything to add or if you would like to challenge it.

edited 20th Jul '11 4:57:35 AM by PiccoloNo92

I think we've had this thread before...

Any rate, my personal opinion on the matter: If it's fictional, don't touch it. I don't care how Squicked you are by somebody's likes/fetishes/creations.

Well I had a look and couldn't find it but if that is the case my apologies. We can still use this as an update to the debate and just a discussion on the particular law especially as this is the first time someone has been prosecuted for drawings under this law.

edited 20th Jul '11 5:13:09 AM by PiccoloNo92

I don't think drawings and computer generated images should be considered child porn at all. I mean, no actual child was harmed and any age given is completely arbitrary anyway. Hentai is full of prepubescent "18-year-olds", after all.

And I would agree but I think the details of the act means that even if it is an imaginary child the depiction of someone under 18 in an inappropriate position will be prosecuted.

Well, just do it like the Japanese and label them "18-year-olds." How will anyone contest their age, anyway?

^ It doesn't help that occasionally there are 18 year old women who look like they never really aged past 12.

Well the way they identify whether or not the image is of an under-18 or not is to quote section 65, 6(b):

"the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child."

Now it may be just me but that is quite an open ended law especially since in reality there are many people over 18 who look a lot younger than that. As said by Tom

edited 20th Jul '11 5:11:37 AM by PiccoloNo92

I'm not sure that expressing such urges in the form of fictional porn would really make someone less likely to express them in real life.

I mean, I know next to nothing about sexuality, but I do know that it's complicated. What might for some people be a safe release of pressure that prevents them from harming children, might for someone else be an indulgence of more and more 'realistic' expressions that will lead to harming children.

I have no idea what would be an appropriate way to deal with this legally, though.

Article is kind of vague. I'm not familiar with the UK's laws, but if he had any actual abuse pictures and videos, that could be the stinger in this. If he did have them, the "drawings" part was probably emphasized by the article because 14,500! pictures sounds like a grand number, and adds a certain emphasis to the weight of the arrest.

edited 20th Jul '11 5:22:12 AM by carbon-mantis

Well it's a tricky point and I would suggest the opposite though I accept that some people will indulge upon it, but I don't think access to those kind of images will be the causal factor in the same way access to violent videogames don't make most people go on murderous rampages. Maybe it can be a contributing factor for some but for others it is just a release. It will most likely come down to the individual. Again it's tricky and unless there is a study that shows otherwise it's quite speculative. If there is such a study however, I'll be willing to adapt my view. But I feel some form of expression is better than being forced to bottle it all in.

Not sure whether he had any actual abuse pictures and if he did he'd obviously be charged for it. But the case is noticeable as it is the first under the act where someone has been charged for the possession of drawings which is kinda the starting point to my question. Also particular parts of the act seem to imply even fictional/imaginary/non-photographic images are illegal.

edited 20th Jul '11 6:02:41 AM by PiccoloNo92

It's a common defence of Lolicon and the like that it's only targeted to a small group of perverts who might otherwise get their kicks from the real thing out it.

I'm not sure I buy that myself, but what are you going to do?

Hmm... without actually being a psychologist with a background of studying the issue, all I can really go on is the harm principle. Drawings and the like don't actually harm anyone. Abuse of real children does. Therefore, jail the child molesters but leave the people drawing and looking at this sort of stuff alone.

Perhaps that is flawed logic due to a missing puzzle piece. But I simply do not have the psychological data to hand in order to suggest a link between people who create or take an interest in drawn child pornography, and graduating into involvement with child pornography involving actual children.

All else aside, even if you had such urges, you'd have to be a seriously sick person to actually act on them, and not just in terms of what turns you on. People don't go around raping people in the streets due to their sex drive, so I presume that there are paedophiles around who would be absolutely disgusted by the idea of abusing a child.

These are all just logic musings. I have no actual data to weigh in on the discussion in a decisive manner. Just because my arguments might sound convincing doesn't make me correct.

There's also the question of what makes a paedophile. Paedophiles generally build up quite a collection of normal pornography before they move onto the child molestation stage, don't they? Don't quote me on that, thats from a half-recollected TV program, and it wasn't a documentary. (It was one of these fictional investigation programs.)

I think one of the reasons this issue is so contested is because its so badly understood.

I dislike the notion that lolicon means that paedophiles will be more likely to molest children, for the same reason that I dislike it when people say that porn makes people more likely to rape others.

That's the kind of thing that should be judged according to whether it's true or not, rather then whether you like or dislike it. I have no idea if exposure to a drawing of sex type X makes one more or less likely to do sex type X, so I'm suspending judgement for now.

The difference is, though, is that not all porn is rape. Pedophilia isn't just a fetish for young children, it's a fetish of controlling/overpowering them. In this twisted, sexy world we live in, yeah sure there's some people out there that fetishize sleeping with a consenting child, but most of the pedophiles - typically the ones into abuse - are in it more for the overpowering aspect.

I'm very split on this matter for the above. It isn't fair that someone's sexual fantasies, in all shapes and forms, are banned, but on the other hand, allowing it would encourage dangerous behavior for a variety of reasons.

edited 20th Jul '11 7:33:50 AM by HeavyDDR

Except that paedophilia is just a fetish for young children. It's just that you never hear about the ones that quietly fantasize about consent, and you only hear about the ones that actually hurt kids. It's like rape fantasies. People just don't talk about it, lest they get in trouble or looked down on for it.

I disagree - the pedophiles I know don't want to control / overpower children, and are disgusted by those who do.

The same probably goes for those going for the drawings (though it depends of the kind of drawings of course).

edited 20th Jul '11 7:45:08 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the child rape games/videos/whatever do represent a desire for dominance and control.

edited 20th Jul '11 7:50:21 AM by blueharp

My view is that it does not matter how distasteful or disturbing something is, if nobody was harmed in its making then it shouldn't be illegal.

I doubt that being in control/overpowering a child has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Now, I don't think someone should be persecuted just for having pictures of fictional characters. No body is arrested for killing fictional characters, much less having them raped. The action on real, breathing people, be it taking suggestive pictures of them or kidnapping and raping them, is the real crime here. However, I really don't think simply having pictures is going to effect whether or not they'd actually go through with the act - especially somehow discourage the act.

Unless anyone can provide statistical, scientific data, and that's probably hard to come by, all we're really going by is gut feelings. And gut feelings is what leads to the Great Paedo Hunt.

As an artistic type, I instinctively want to say that you should be able to express and view the artistic expression of any idea, no matter how wrong it is, because to selectively restrict ideas is inherently harmful. Then again, if someone can show me studies with a high correlation between people who appreciate artform A and child abusers, then I could probably be persuaded to support selective legal restrictions.

What strikes me as most problematic about it is simply how difficult it is to enforce, for the same reasons that strict age limits for sexual activity are also difficult enforce, only even worse, because fictional worlds don't have to obey the laws of science. Do you lock someone up for reading a story about a five year old who was magically aged to eighteen but still has the mind of a child? What about the reverse, a child with an adult mind, a la Interview with a Vampire's Claudia? What about Sailor Moon panty shots? Are all Sailor Moon fans now pedos? How do you even define that line in suitably concrete terms that you don't jail innocent people a significant amount of the time?

I can understand and respect the theory (that room of Michael Jackson's with the blue-haired kid in a million pictures, yes, that IS creepy as all hell and indicative of some Issues), but actual enforcement seems like a boondoggle to me.

IIRC, Japan's schoolgirl fetish stuff only really got popularized as a way to avoid showing pubic hair, which was itself forbidden to try to censor risque activities. Obviously that didn't work out too well.

edited 20th Jul '11 8:14:48 AM by Karkadinn

It seems most people on this thread are reasonable. I'd agree with Major Tom and Game Chainsaw, in that laws should let fictional depictions, and people who watch them, alone, since no real-life harm is done. Otherwise, just ban all American action movies because killing is bad.

I think these works of fiction should remain people (especially lawmakers and Moral Guardians) of just that with a disclaimer: "Remember, this is a work of fiction. No children were put in sexual situations or otherwise harmed while making this. Don't Try This at Home."

If it's fiction that doesn't involve actual children don't touch it. I don't care how morally reprehensible the shit is. Leave it alone.

This also reminds me that it bugs me that I can't find lolicon or shotacon that doesn't fill me with annoyance. Saddening. I do wonder why I like that and the idea of such things though when actual real life children invoke feelings of "I hate you you're annoying", "Ew gross", and "OMGWTFBBQ YOU'RE SO CUTE SQUEEEEEEZE". You would think I'd be a paedophile according to everyone, but nope. WHOO FANTASIES THAT DON'T EXTEND TO REALITY IN THE SLIGHTEST.

The mind is funny that way.

If it's just fiction then it should be fine. You can't stop people from socially shunning Pedophiles but that's their choice to shun them anyway. As long as it's fictional and there is nothing physical then it should be fine. To be clear I am against child actors, but just drawings or such should be okay no matter how creeped out most people are by it.

I hate to draw a comparison like this but isn't the way Pedo's are generally thought of now the same way homosexuals used to be thought off? I see a lot of Pedo scare these day's but it's not like all of them are going to abduct or molest children, i'd consider rape fantasies worse and yet they are lawfully fine so simple drawings hardly seem cause for prosecution.