It is a very immature understanding of sex to assume that sex is only about gratification of sexual desire. It is mostly a symbolic act of wanting to embrace and become intimate with characteristics perceived to be possessed by the object of desire.

Looking at pictures of children may well be a symbolic act of a wish to return to childhood. Longingly looking is more about the longing than the looking. The desire to return to childhood is common in people who have had an unsatisfactory childhood and have not been able to leave it behind. There is, for many, ‘unfinished business’ with childhood and it is not unusual for those people to be fascinated with children. Just looking at images of children will never satisfy the emotional need but it does no harm to anyone but the viewer.

Moving beyond viewing to acting out those symbolic needs is a different story since it impinges upon the rights and freedom of children to develop and to freely choose. A person with a collection of thousands of images does a lot less damage than a father who sexually abuses his own daughter.

The outrage that people express about images is out of proportion and quite often covers an underlying sense of guilt about more profound harm that is done in the family home. It is much easier to point the finger than to face the reality of actual sexual abuse.

Exactly why is viewing and possessing freely available but proscribed images of children a criminal offence?

The author logically suggests that, if mere looking or possessing in itself causes no obvious damage, then it should not be an offence.

Those supporting criminalisation of the above behaviours generally argue that viewing such material either increases the risk of offending against children or is evidence of an unhealthy interest in sex with children. They also argue that if people pay for child porn (as opposed to looking at the freely available images the author is talking about) they create demand for the child pornography industry.

While there may be a case for liberalism, it is unlikely to happen in this case because the public generally regards sexualisation of children as unwholesome. The public also views those gaining gratification from looking at images of children as perverted. I can't see too many people putting their hands up for change.

Sexual abuse is an act of power, not merely sexual gratification. Child abuse is manifestly an act of power. Perving on pictures of young kids is a sublimated act of power, and yes, it may lead on to actual sexual abuse. I'm sure perverts would try to justify it, it's just pictures, nothing going on here, etc. Yeah, right.

Joe

NO HARM IN LOOKING!? Look pal, if there wasn't a market for this CRAP! THOSE POOR LITTLE BUGGERS WOULDN'T BE BUGGERED AND BASTARDISED!
AND EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY SCARRED FOR LIFE!
END OF STORY, CREEP!
Alan B.

Just a quick couple of points while I work on a longer paper.
(1) I'm arguing that looking should not be a CRIMINAL offence. If the law wants to make it a lesser offence, it may do so.

(2) I note Alan B — again.

Psychologists often ask their patients to respond with the first association-word that comes to mind:

Fork: knife (spoon)
Car: bicycle (truck)
Man: woman (animal)

Now in the 20th century, when the word "child" ("boy"/"girl") was mentioned, the associations would mostly be warm, pleasant, familial and benign.

But in this century, few can claim that their first word of association would not be "sex", or "abuse".

Neural connections work - they do not only study reality, but also co-create it!

Adults can no longer afford to look at children (other than their own), let alone play with them, for fear of implications - even when sexuality is the last thing on their mind. Children too can no longer benefit from the non-sexual attention of adults, which used to be part and parcel of life and healthy development. Why should adolescents, never having experienced otherwise, learn to associate and express attention with sexual-attention?

Phanto mentioned the desire to return to childhood and having ‘unfinished business’ with childhood. There is nothing wrong about it and it usually has nothing to do with sex, yet frustrating such non-sexual desires can over time turn them into sexual ones.

Finally, regarding nudity. Nudity is considered a sin and a cause for shame in the Abrahamic religions, which unnecessarily connects it with sex. Germany however, where public nudity is common, considered natural and not an offence, used to enjoy the least interest in sexuality and the least number of sex-crimes (until recently, due to Middle-Eastern immigration). Had natural and harmless curiosity not been bundled with sexuality, thus curbed and made to fester, then all sexual thoughts would have been far less in between.

Yeah Henson and his mates (including Turnbull) believe that naked shots of young girls is pornography for the right and art for the left. Somehow the left deny the corrupt nature of human beings despite them having just as many if not more deviants in their ranks.

Let's, for the moment, take at face value the assertion that we criminalise possession of kiddie porn because the very creation of that porn involves abuse of children. Seems reasonable enough and that's certainly the rationale many use to justify censorship and the prosecution of those many times removed from the actual crime.

Take these scenarios:

1. A gifted artist draws a highly realistic picture of an adult man having sex with a clearly pre-pubescent child. Illegal to view/download? What if its made abundantly clear that it is a drawing?

2. A film director casts an 18 yr old girl who is as yet undeveloped (a Twiggy-type) and dresses her to look 14. Then makes a film about her being 'used' by an adult of whatever gender. Its made clear that all actors are over 18. Illegal to view/own?

3. A director casts a bunch of 33yr olds to make a porno featuring bondage, rape, etc. Then, using the technology used by Cameron in Avatar he uses CGI to make half of the actors appear to be 10 yr old kids. The film credits make it clear that no child was involved. Illegal?

If any of these would be considered to be criminal then clearly it isn't about protecting the kiddies but about criminalising activity that others find objectionable.

We've already had a case where a man was found guilty of having child porn being pictures of Bart and Lisa Simpson f..king. I suspect the above scenarios would similarly be found to be criminal.

We are criminalising objectionable activity. Or perhaps we are working on the basis of stopping future crime on the assumption that being drawn to kiddie porn would lead to taking part in kiddie sex. (Minority Report). But protecting the kids isn't the primary goal.

As usual the censors are salving their consciences by claiming they are doing it for the kids. They aren't

I would like to know what correlation there is between viewing images and actual assault of children. Does the viewing produce a release valve for tensions or add to the desire. There is plausible evidence in other areas that relief valves play a role in reductions of actual harm to real people. I've not seen anything to help me form an opinion if that might be the case with child pornography.

I do though regardless of the answer to the first question have concerns around the reality that a child can't validly consent to sexually explicit images being taken, that the images may never go away and if tolerated may come back to haunt the subject in later life. Geographic displacement does not legitimately remove those issues and with growing technology capabilities it may become much easier in the future for such images to be used to harm people in adult life based on images taken as children.

I suspect that our societies issues with body taboo's actually contribute significantly to sexual dysfunction and that we could to a long way to improving things by working towards healthier attitudes to the human body.

R0bert

Here's one that might appeal to you sicko.
http://www.biljanadjurdjevic.com/LivingInOblivion.html

RObert says "I would like to know what correlation there is between viewing images and actual assault of children."
The research I have read on this issue suggests that availability of pornography leads to a reduction in sex crimes and this includes child pornography. Of course this makes perfect sense as pornography tends to act as an alternative to rather than an adjunct to sexual activity.
In any case these laws certainly lack a reasonable rationale when no child is actually harmed in the making of the pornography such as in the case of the written word or child sex dolls.
It seems strange that while we find murder abhorrent, we don't have any qualms about people watching images of it. Horror movies for example. Even real life murders such as the hanging of Saddam Hussain whose execution was watched on the internet by million of people around the globe. We don't think the victim is being further harmed in those cases and as such it seems strange to think that a victim of child sexual abuse is being further harmed when some unknown stranger looks at the images.
However, it would be a brave politician who speaks out against these laws. We can't even get effective drug policy in this country so I would be highly surprised if we managed to get child porn laws right.

So armchair, do you think that ought to be banned/censored?

If so why?

A lot of people who view child pornography aren't even attracted to children, they do it to confirm their own feelings of worthlessness; the internal monologue goes something like: "I'm so disgusting and useless, this is the sort of thing I should be looking at, I know I'm already the lowest form of life on the planet and this just confirms it".
OCD also plays a part, child pornography is difficult to obtain and this personality type gets addicted to the chase for ever more extreme, or novel images; sort of like a gruesome game of "Top Trumps" with other collectors.

Judging by some of the comments on my article, some don’t understand what portrayals of children are illicit. I'll try to explain it in three successive posts.
Under the old law (pre-2010), which is typical of all States:
“child pornography” means material that depicts or describes (or appears to depict or describe), in a manner that would in all the circumstances cause offence to reasonable persons, a person who is (or appears to be) a child: (a) engaged in sexual activity, or (b) in a sexual context, or (c) as the victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse (whether or not in a sexual context).
In this case, (a) and (b) conform to our working definition, although (b) is vague, but (c) would fit if the phrase “whether or not” were deleted.
The new law (NSW Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material Bill 2010) which became effective in April 2010, was introduced thus:
The new provisions, which are modelled on the Commonwealth provisions, specifically extend to a greater range of material, including material that depicts or describes the private parts of a child. The material concerned will now be referred to as child abuse material. "Child abuse material" is defined as material that depicts or describes in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive: first, a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child as a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse; second; a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child engaged in or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity, whether or not in the presence of other persons; third, a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be, a child in the presence of another person who is engaged or apparently engaged in a sexual pose or sexual activity; or, fourth, the private parts of a person who is, appears to be or is implied to be a child. (See NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard March 10 2010 at page 21195.)
To be continued.

There are two immediate lines of opposing reasoning here. First, it could be argued that the provisions of the new law are so vague that, taken together with Taylor and Quayle’s (TQ) typology of child pornography, no picture of any child in any circumstance could escape suspicion—the unwilling boy soldier included. Indeed, by that reasoning, all 13 images at the end of this chapter are suspect. Second, the opposite could be true—the phrase “in all the circumstances” could let all non-sexual images of children out of the section because there is no definition of what constitutes a “sexual pose”.
It might be instructive here to list the first five levels of TQ’s ten “different kinds of child pornography”.
1. Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes, etc. from either commercial sources or family albums; pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness
2. Pictures of semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings and from legitimate sources.
3. Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4. Deliberately posed pictures of children fully, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organisation suggests sexual interest).
5. Deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses (TQ: 32)

Depending on the content, level 5 might include pornographic images but to to include levels 1-4 as kinds of child pornography does not assist in distinguishing images of the sexual abuse of children from other images. Photographers like Henson, Sturgess, Mann, Mapplethorpe and Leibovitz have all taken many pictures that would be classed as level 4, but to extend that description to suggest those artists had a sexual interest in children would be unfair, to say the least. (They’ve all had a spot of bother about their pics too.)
TQ’s pornography level 10(b): “Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child” is unarguably pornography but 10(a) is not: “Pictures showing a child being tied, bound, beaten, whipped or otherwise subject to something that implies pain”. This latter offends against the new law’s “child abuse” definition.
I trust this is helpful to the discussion. Meanwhile I’m working on an article that illustrates how the law has made us adopt the paedophile’s gaze when looking at children and their images. I remember my pre-teen days when a man (any man) would, in passing, ruffle my then blonde hair and say something like “how are you going snowball”. Would anyone be game to do that sort of thing now?

mhaze,
No I don't think that image should be banned, but you'd have to be pretty sick and twisted to enjoy looking at those things.
I don't know the artists reasons behind painting such things; not sure they were painted to be enjoyed or from something she experienced or what exactly she was trying to convey.

I'm sorry but reading the comments so far has left me in dis-belief.
IMAGES OF CHILDREN: THERE'S NO HARM IN LOOKING? Really? No! I for one will not stand by and watch while you politically correct criminals try to attempt to sell another disgusting act as OK for certain 'SICK' people. There's no harm (in the family looking) if they are the usual pics depicting the child/children going through their normal growing activities, eg; sports, school play, family outing etc; then this is the norm and quite acceptable. If a family member or friend 'get off' at seeing these same pics, then they need help. Anyone drooling or perving over pics of children is a disgusting and sick individual and deemed abhorrent to any healthy mature adult. Do I have to remind everyone about the NATURAL ORDER of things. They are children for f@%$ sake!

@ ALTRAV. You obviously have a strong opinion, so why not join the discussion? The question is not whether some people are sick and/or disgusting but whether the subject child is harmed by the looking.
The question is put in very clear language at the end of the article, here it is again:
So! Exactly why is viewing and possessing freely available but proscribed images of children a criminal offence?
Perhaps you have a very sound argument somehwere, let's all have a look at it.

Robert99, I am embarrassed to say that I am not as well versed in the English language as yourself and some other commentors. Because of this I have difficulty in understanding many responses. The devil is in the detail, but I will attempt to respond to what I understand to be the point/s. I believe I have understood the title. My response is based purely on socially accepted standards. I have taken your title to imply that the 'looking' at pics of children had to do with a desire to admire or ogle the child in the pic. Your title is too broad and leaves me to the conclusion that I have eluded to previously. I believe I have explained the difference in looking by pointing out that different people have different reasons for looking at pics of children. To all these people I say; GET HELP! I have chosen to highlight the 'bad' side of the argument. I do not subscribe to these new 'politically correct' notions I have heard where there are those who are attracted to children and they even have a name for it. It came to light when the debate of same sex marriage was the topic of the day. I'm sorry Robert99 but this is my response to what I have understood from your article. I can see where you are trying to mitigate an otherwise indefensible act. AH well, it's good to see freedom of speech is alive and well.

ALTRAV. First, thanks for a considered and polite response. Second, you're right, the title is too broad but that's because the legal definition of of child pornography is itself too broad, as the article demonstrates.

My argument is, the mere act of looking at even the most disgusting images should not be a crime but the law makes it so. I DO NOT defend the making or trading in images that portray sex with young children.

I'm not, as you say,trying to mitigate an otherwise indefensible act but even if I were, an indefensible act, while most likely offensive, is not necessarily a criminal act. For example, if someone parks in your driveway, blocking your movements, while there's lots of kerbside space everywhere, that's indefensible. You'd be more than offended, you'd be furious but that doesn't make it a crime. The law can make looking at images an "offence" any time it likes — a bit like (dare I say it?) low-level speeding.

What do you make of The Simpson's case?