User:Fgillice/sandbox

The majority of child pornography(CP) on-line today 2014 is self produced; this behavioral problem utilizing the internet is pervasive, and worldwide leaving previous psychological and behavioral traits associated with contact offending inconsistent in terms of their on-line behaviour. The grooming argument is that offenders show child pornography to potential victims in order to normalize child sexual activities by saying, "Other children do it so it's OK" and this may have some plausibility in the case of younger, prepubertal children who are ignorant or naive; However it has little relevance to older kids, especially boys, who have entered puberty where adult XXX videos arouse them. They are more effective because they are cheaper, generally better quality and much less risky to use. Approaching the problem of grooming realistically is the question of how things are used, not the fact that they are possessed. Therefore child pornography has very limited impact on the grooming of children. A common sense approach to grooming behaviour should focus on the use of materials and substances that would most likely put children at risk but child pornography prohibition can only offer a sense of false security especially in adolescence that begun experiencing puberty. Kids are more inclined to behave deviantly given that dis-inhibition is possible on their computer where their perceived anonymity and depersonalization can cause problems. So far attempts to quantify the scale of this behavior presents difficulties. A Moral panic has led Congress to pursue an ever-expanding federal regime by broadening the scope of child pornography laws and substantially increasing the length of sentences. Based on my assessment of the empirical evidence, this Congressional stance is best characterized as political soapboxing. Overall, empirical research fails to establish a correlation, much less a causative link, between the viewing of child pornography and contact offenses against children.(http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/05/73.1.Bosak_.pdf)

According to the evidence submitted by experts most child sexual assault is at the hands of parents and relatives. In these cases child pornography is hardly ever involved; However many abusers record their abuse     and post it on-line without enumeration. Of the remaining child sex offenders most are what is called "situational" or "opportunistic" offenders who substitute children for adults. Indiscriminate predators, may be unattractive, suffer low self esteem or lack the interpersonal skills to find an adult partner. They have no particular interest in child porn and it is highly unlikely that they would use it to incite themselves. Only specifically to normalize adult-child for seduction purposes, "groom" quite young children would they have any use for it and this is problematical. Child sex offenders who are true or "preferential" pedophiles like most people generally, and have much interest in pornography of any kind. It seems as though those who lack porn are more likely to assault children. Granting that some sex offenders including pedophiles use porn to hype themselves up before offending that does not mean that porn incites their offenses. Unless a person's exposure to CP is inadvertent that person has already formed the intent to offend when they use the pornography. Lacking porn they would likely find other means to hype themselves to offend. Researchers say using the grooming argument that offenders show child pornography to potential victims in order to normalize child sexual activities as in, "Other children do it so it's OK" is the line. As plausible as that sounds in the case of younger, prepubertal children who are ignorant or naive, However it has little relevance to older kids, especially boys, who have entered puberty and watch adult XXX videos which arouse them. They do so for the following reasons, because they are cheaper, generally better quality and much less risky to use. In approach the problem of grooming realistically the question of how things are used, not the fact that they are possessed comes into question. Therefore child pornography has very limited impact on the grooming of children. The common sense approach to the problem of grooming should focus on the use of materials and substances that would most likely put children at risk and child pornography prohibition can only offer a sense of false security.(http://www.cac-kent.org/pdfs/Lanning_-_Suspect_Typology.pdf) (Fgillice (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC))