Art or kiddy porn?

That art exhibition has had me thinking about the whole question of child pornography. It is so incredibly emotive it can be a little difficult to think clearly about. If ever there was an issue to incite a "won't somebody please think of the children" response, this is it.

I haven't actually seen any of the images from the exhibition, but it did start me thinking about what is or isn't child pornography. Given that most (little) kids love getting their gear off, I have a hard time seeing the line in the sand as being nakedness of any sort. So where is it? I guess I knew it would be fuzzy, but I had thought "I'll know it when I see it" would at least be true for myself. I knew I had given Crash a book of photography that included photos of naked children, photos of naked adults, overtly sexual photos of naked adults and photos of mushrooms (among other things). So I dragged it out (because there's nothing like kiddy porn for dinner party conversation) and tried to identify why those photos weren't porn, as opposed to things that clearly are. I rather surprised myself by being unsure when I looked at a few of the individual photos. However, when I looked at the book as a whole, I just couldn't see it as anything other than a delight in the human form, children depicted as children, adults depicted as adults, the adults both sexual and non-sexual.

One answer is how the children in the image (or whatever) are treated. If they are being exploited or intimidated or abused, the line has clearly been crossed. It's still a little tricky, because I suspect some people would feel that a child being photographed naked is definitely exploitation. I don't agree with that. I think that is heading down the prudish line of thought. Nakedness does not equal sexuality, at least not in my world.

The other side of it is how it will be used. This is, I think, where it gets a lot murkier, and relies heavily on your beliefs about the nature of paedophilia. The damage that may be done by virtual child porn (either digital or making adults look like kids) and non-sexual naked kids depends on what makes paedophiles tick.

There seems to be two schools of thought - one is that paedophilia is just another form of rape. It is about the power and not about sexual attraction. The other is that it is genuine sexual attraction, and therefore at least a mental defect if not technically defined as a mental illness.

If you go with definition one, virtual porn can fuel the desire, and allow them to play out their abusive thoughts in preparation for the real thing. It is also an exercise in self-justification. Other people do it too. Non-sexual nakedness, on the other hand, should hold no interest whatsoever.

In the case of definition 2, both kinds will be of interest, but are unlikely to change their desires one way or the other. The virtual stuff may still have a justification aspect - in fact it may be stronger because their goal is not abuse, the behaviour is born of genuine (if very inappropriate) desire. It feels natural to them, so there is immense conflict between society's norms and their own instinct. Finding evidence of other similar people may allow them to decide society is wrong. On the other hand, in this case there is the possibility of this stuff having a therapeutic effect - an outlet for people who understand that their desire is wrong, but can't suppress it either. Which is the stronger influence? Is there any evidence or is it all speculation?

It seems to me that we have a massive lack of basic research. I would hazard a guess that there are people of both kinds, but I couldn't even begin to stab at the percentage make-up. I am almost completely convinced that people of type 2 exist. It would take a lot of very good research to convince me otherwise.

We need to know. Really, really need to know. Demonising type 2 people is pointless. Many live in a personal hell already. Children need to be protected from them, but there isn't much point legislating about it, except, I suppose, as the last resort method of protecting children from them (ie gaol). It also impacts heavily on how we should handle the porn.

I don't think there is much evidence that sexual fantasy incites the behaviour in the real world, so I'm not sure how much I buy into that argument. I am also a champion self-justifier, so I tend to doubt that the justification argument holds much water, without the porn, I am sure they can find some other way to justify their behaviour, in either case.

I think I come down on the side of allowing porn that doesn't hurt kids directly. I doubt it actually makes anything worse, and for some (unknown) percentage, it might even help.

But then how do I reconcile this with my absolute disgust with the sexualisation of kids - or more accurately of little girls? One of the reasons I found the photography book to land on the right side of the line was that it depicted girls and boys equally.

Ultimately I think the two things are utterly unrelated - with one exception. I think they are unrelated because I think the sexualisation of little girls is about consumerism. Teenagers are the ultimate consumers, high disposable income, low self esteem. Perfect marketing fodder. So it makes sense that marketers everywhere would like kids to behave like teenagers sooner. Make them body conscious and they will buy. And we, their mothers, desperately don't want our daughters to feel fat and ugly like we did, so we are inclined to indulge their requests. "Whatever they feel comfortable in" is a justification I have seen women use when their 8 year olds are dressed as slappers. And I have no doubt they believe it, but the problem is that the comfort zone is being set by marketers, not the natural inclination of the kids. No school girl ever instinctively wanted the school girl look. We need to resist it in the same way we need to resist brand worshipping. I survived my teenage years without my parents buying me any brand names (although I confess to buying LA Gears with my own money). I reckon most kids will survive looking like a kid until they reach puberty...

The exception is that as a society, we send a spectacularly hypocritical message when we allow our little girls to be depicted as sexual sirens, and them condemn paedophilia. I know kids are sexual beings, but it is childish sexuality, it isn't about come hither poses, high heels, make up and short skirts. It's about you show me yours and I'll show you mine, hitting the boy you've got a desperate crush on and so on. If you show that part of their sexuality, I doubt it would inspire paedophiles much, nor will it inspire much consumerism.

And why isn't this as harmless as virtual porn? Because porn is definitely in the fantasy realm, hooker look-a-like little girls aren't.

In terms of that exhibit - I have just tried to find some info, and oddly enough a quick perusal doesn't mention whether or not there were boys and girls in the photos, only that it was only ones of girls that the police were interested in. If there were no photos of boys, I would be far more inclined to have a problem with it - context always matters.