Severin, for what it is worth I do not regard it as normal or acceptable to view child pornography. I do think that there is a higher likelihood that a person would sexually abuse a step-child than their own child. I don't think in most households it is a high risk in either case, but it obviously does happen.

I for one have been disturbed by some of rstuart's recent posts that seek to defend child pornography and to distort the published facts about the case that is the subject of the original article. One thing that disturbs me is that I've generally found rstuart to be a reasonable and intelligent participant in OLO discussions, such that if he can condone child pornography and placing a child in danger of sexual abuse, then what do the knuckledragging misogynists really think?

<< Because when it comes to sex, healthy adult males love variety and novelty. Part of their genetic programming is to seek it out. >>

That sort of reasoning could be used to justify any form of sexual behaviour at all, including child sexual abuse, incest and rape. Also, as Severin points out and in my own experience, healthy adult females also love variety and novelty in sex. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the majority of healthy adults enjoy variety and novelty in sex, but that in no way justifies the sexual exploitation of children, of which child pornography is one manifestation.

I'm also bothered by this:

<< Yes, the child porn is not a good look. But as far as I can tell, it was one of the few solid facts in the case. The rest were just allegations from the mother. >>

If rstuart's bothered to read the court proceedings that have been linked to numerous times at OLO, then that's just untrue. The elder daughter daughter made allegations about his invitations to join him in his bed, where he would pester her. The father had previously been subject to a court order specifically banning that activity, but he had resumed it - which is the major reason the daughter didn't want to stay overnight at his place.

However, the Judge made an order that forces these young girls to stay overnight against their wishes with a convicted consumer of child pornography, who apparently likes to sleep with young girls. As a "biological father" of two daughters, I think the Judge erred, badly.

GY

Your response is very much appreciated. We know that both biological and non-biological in the majority are good parents - to draw a marked distinction between adoptive and biological parents is not conducive to establishing safe environments for our children. That a non-biological parent is more likely to abuse a child is very debatable, I do not have sufficient information to make a blanket judgement on such a view. As with most issues of life it is very much an individual situation. I am sure most men would agree that they are no more likely to abuse other children than their own.

Like CJ Morgan, I have become increasingly concerned by the attempt to whitewash the incidence of viewing child porn by a few of the posters to OLO. Therefore, I have to consider that this few may well represent a view among a minority of determined men who wish to retain their perceived 'rights' to sexual variety by exploiting the family courts and custody arrangements.

The opinions that have been revealed since OLO's publishing of Patricia Merkin's article have been disturbing to say the least. I wonder if it is possible for people directly involved in child welfare be encouraged to submit some evidence based articles on this issue.

Another two interesting points drawn from this and similar threads are:

1. The persistent blanket denigration of single mothers (be they divorced, widowed, unmarried etc).

2. The accusations against stepfathers and adoptive parents.

The pattern I see (which is open to debate) is one of a minority, but nevertheless influential, lobbying for male parental control irrespective of the welfare of women, children and other men.

'could some real men step forward and respond to the claims by Rstuart, et al'

'I don't understand why good men are not offended, much less outraged, at OTHER MEN who do these things. These offenders are representing masculinity because other males ignore, minimize or deny - effectively giving silent assent to it's continuance.'

Of course, as a 'real man', I am only too keen to allow myself to be bullied into apologising for my gender.

As a real man, I am also happy to validate the all pervasive feminist idea that since I am male I must therefore agree with the comments put forward by all other males if I fail to comment on them. We're all one you know. Every other man's sin is really my sin.

A similar pressure to denounce the likes of ChazP is about as abundant as the phrase 'be a woman'.

Ah what a joy it must be living in the skin of the 'benefit of the doubt' gender, knowing you're full of all that motherly goodness, never having to apologise for or denounce or distance yourself from the sins of people you don't know just because you have the same genitals.

@Pynchme: I don't understand why people here are minimizing the issue of child pornography trying to normalize it.

Because looking at pictures is essentially a thought crime, and we are actively prosecuting men for thought crimes. The Simpsons cartons example clearly shows this is the case. In other words, because you find the very idea of a man looking at a picture you dislike revolting, you want him thrown in jail. You evidently find that acceptable. I don't.

Nor do I find it acceptable to separate men from their children because of thought crimes. On the basis of them committing real crimes, certainly. On a psychologists assessment that a persons behaviour means there is a high probability they will commit a crime in the future - perhaps. On the basis the man crossing some imaginary line of political correctness line born out of a moral panic - absolutely not. Regardless of how disgusting you think the males private behaviour is, in this case if he does not harm his kids it doesn't matter. To put it in stark terms: no matter how sickening you find his behaviour, if it effects no one else the correct solution is for you to not think about it, not start penalising the man for your thoughts.

From my point of view, I suspect you know your assertion that looking at pictures normalises what they depict is wrong yet you mischievously rely on it to get things you things you find unpleasant banned. And the assertion that recording an activity in writing or in pictures somehow normalises it is obviously wrong. That iconic picture http://jamblichus.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/napalm.jpg of a young girl running naked from a napalmed Vietnam village did not "normalise" war - quite the reverse. The remarkable thing is if that picture was not so iconic, it would join the Simpsons cartoons as child pornography. I am sure some die hard paedophiles do get off looking at it, and surely you find that thought unpleasant, so shouldn't it be banned?

Severin, Pynchme's link to the Mayo Clinic report appears to validate the statistically higher chance that a step-parent, adoptive or foster parent will abuse a child. The maths suggest 50% more likely, but as I suspect there is a higher proportion of children living with both biological parents than with a step parent etc the percentage would probably be higher.

It also references a Canadian study which mentions the high likelihood of a step-parent or neighbour being the molester - Bagley et al 1994.

Fits with my perception that someone who was the biologic parent would feel a closer bond than someone who wasn't, making the taboo less strong. Coupled to that you have the fact that pedophiles will try to put themselves in a position where they have access to children, making step-parenthood attractive to some of them.