@benk: What is the psychology behind this assertion? What is the mechanism that might make this claim plausible?

Let me put what I am about to say into perspective. I don't consider it much better than a wild arsed guess. Like you and I the psychologists see the stats (example: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html ). It looks to me like that have plucked some explanation out of the air which sounds very reasonable but has little empirical justification. Well, nothing beyond it fitting the stats.

First a statement of the problem: there is no doubt people who consume huge amounts of porn commit more sex crimes, but it appears sex crimes drop with the increasing availability of porn. It is a conundrum. To explain it, the psychologists say an underlying character flaw drives both things.

So rather than saying the mere sight of porn causes people to do what is depicted, the character flaw is what drives paedophiles, rapists, serial murders and so on. The porn has little effect on those without the flaw. One way to satisfy an unshakable urge is to do the deed, but as we all know porn can also satisfy an innate drive. So kiddie porn can partially satisfy a paedophile's urges.

This gives our deviant a choice. He can get his highs from doing the deed, but if he does that often enough we will find him and throw away the keys. Or he can make do with porn. It is not as good as the real thing, but maybe it beats spending your life in jail. It also appears some deviants are disgusted by the harm caused by their urges and look for a way to escape them. The guy in CJ's newspaper article is an example of this - he has pleaded for chemical castration repeatedly.

Prior to the internet, I imagine getting hold of kiddie porn was well neigh impossible, so that second option wasn't available. But with the increasing availability of porn it becomes an easier and easier option to take, and the deviants are making a rational decision to do so.

benk,

Since you seem trying to put some rational thought into this, I'll explain another part of the puzzle. It is easiest to do this by contrasting child porn with snuff films. Initially there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two. They are both abhorrent. Surely if support you ban one you would support banning both.

But I don't. I can't see any reason not to ban snuff films. The critical difference is it fairly to figure out if someone has been killed. Since there can't be much argument about that, there can't be much argument about what is and isn't a snuff film.

That isn't the case for child porn. Obviously at one end of the scale there is no debate. It is not hard to imagine a scene we would all agree on banning, just as we can with snuff films. I have no doubt when pelican (who I happen to think is a fairly reasonable person) says all child porn should be banned it is scenes like this she is thinking about.

But the other end is mushy. Everyone knows where the line should be drawn, but it is in a different place each time. Thus you get some twit it should be drawn on high rise buildings adjacent to schools, another who thinks Bill Henson photographs are child abuse, laws that say Simpsons cartoons are child porn, and mandatory internet filters to get rid of it all. Pelican wants to disown this, but human nature being what it is this insanity can't be separated from the law because unlike snuff films, the line is mushy.

So some innocent people are getting their lives wrecked because we have criminalised possession of child porn. But to some extent this is true for most laws. We always take some pain to get the gain. So what is different this time? Well - I can't see the gain. Common sense says kids should be safer if we reduce child porn, and I am sure this is what pelican relies on. But the stats say pelican is wrong.

rstuart - once again we'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I'm quite comfortable with the way that laws pertaining to child pornography stand, but I acknowledge that you have the right to campaign for its legalisation.

I agree with some of your points - e.g. I wouldn't classify the Simpsons cartoons as child pornography, since no actual child was involved in their production. However, in all your rationalisations about child pornography you don't seem to take into account the children who are abused in its production.

Anyway, with the recent injection of Antiseptic and his toady into the discussion, I think that the civility we've been able to maintain is unlikely to be maintained, so I'll leave you to it.

As I said, I'll watch your campaign with interest.

'think that the civility we've been able to maintain is unlikely to be maintained,'

That civility was maintained by Fractelle's post being deleted and Fractelle being suspended. Ah there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Too funny.

We have CJ leaving because he's scared of myself and antiseptic and we have pynchme leaving because she hasn't got the support of Fractelle. BTW the biggest laugh all year was that last pynchme post. Oh actually second biggest, the biggest was the supposedly saintly Fractelle being suspended.

Just what is it that I said that scared you so CJ? I posted nothing abusive, all I did was clarify to pelican the definition of child porn that was in question. ie naked children in public.

[Deleted for abuse]

[Deleted for abuse]