The catholic church is not evidence that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It's evidence that the internet is not the solve source of pedophiles. If pedophiles are created and not only born that way (I suspect there's strong evidence from abuse studies that indicates this is true), then it's possible they can be created from multiple sources. Long-standing sexual abuse of children by the catholic church is not by nature of it's existence evidence the internet does or does not create pedophiles if you believe they can be created from other sources (is the catholic church responsible for every single pedophile?)

> Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet.

That's too strong an assertion. It doesn't "just" mean anything, it indicates some relationship, not necessarily a complete explanation.

Personally, I don't know whether I think one way or the other on this, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as people are presenting it. As I understand it, sexual behavior does not always follow the same patterns as other behavior, and people rushing to immediately assume it is or isn't related should probably step back and think a bit more critically, and gather a bit more verified information that directly applies.

To me, the fact that so many people are rushing in with arguments that I see as tenuous, if not outright fallacious, points towards an emotional response by people rather than a rational response. Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off, it deserves some respect in how it is responded to. If it's false, it deserves to be clearly and obviously indicated as such with evidence, and if it's NOT, then we should really examine what that means.

>Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off

I don't think that should be up to 'us' (non-pedophiles) to decide. Arguably, perhaps the Internet doesn't 'create' pedophiles as much as it may help people understand that they are pedophiles, and that society's shaming of them (which, yes, does lead to worse psychological outcomes and increased stress for the afflicted person) has negatively impacted them and forced them to keep quiet about their sexuality. This stigma even prevents them from seeing mental health care providers, for fear that therapists will incorrectly (and perhaps even illegally) report them.

I have no opinion that fiction can impact pedophiles and inflame their desires, but I do not think that is a good enough reason to do away with fiction (to make the publisher liable) - the degrees of separation are too high for me to see illegalising fiction as a reasonable and just measure. The idea that someone can be thrown in prison for the mere risk of the following circumstances coalescing:

* Creating material that might appeal to some pedophiles

* If those pedophiles find the material

* If it hits on the appropriate themes to inflame desires (e.g. is it straight fiction? Gay fiction? Is the subject in the fiction the right age? The right appearance?)

* If those 'inflamed desires' are processed by the pedophile's brain to relate to the real world, forming a plan of action (let's call this real-desire)

* If that real-desire faces no moral or practical impediment to its execution

* If the pedophile's impulse control is low enough to execute the real-desire

This is an extremely tenuous chain of events, each one relying on the previous event - and most of this chain of events is squarely in the court of the pedophile/potential child abuser, not the author of the fiction, who still merely creates the risk of this chain of events occurring. This is complicated by the fact that we have no idea how many non-offending pedophiles there are, and we know that most child sexual abuse is not perpetrated by strangers, but by family members (i.e. there is a specific target; this is not usually how people relate to porn), and a large portion of that sexual abuse is not even perpetrated by pedophiles.

The best tactic to prevent child sexual abuse is to stop assuming all pedophiles are potential rapists, and to stop assuming that the people who consume fiction necessarily find fictional desires reflected in their actual psychology (or vice versa). See Patrick Galbraith on this topic.

> I don't think that should be up to 'us' (non-pedophiles) to decide.

I meant, specifically, if society will punish you severely for behaving a certain way, and if behaving that way also causes severe negative outcomes for others, then something that causes people to develop desire for and possibly actual behavior in that way is purely negative for everyone involved, including society, the person that develops the desire and/or behavior, and the people that behavior affects.

As a simple extreme theoretical variation, if looking at specific shade of color that was not natural or common caused people that viewed it to enter a trance-like state where they murdered others, we would say "holy shit, get rid of that color everywhere. People are being murdered, and the murderers are victims too!"

And I'm not saying I believe the statement about material creating pedophiles either, but given the importance of the outcome, it's definitely something we should pay attention to and try to find the truth about. That truth might be that it's easily proven false, or that it's obviously true, or that it's some weird complicated combination thereof, but the I think it's obvious that the correct case is not to say "naw, it's the same as videogame violence, and we've all come to the conclusion that that's bunk, so this is bunk, case closed." There are real reasons why it might be different than violence, or that the statistics that make one acceptable don't work out the same way for the other.

> The best tactic to prevent child sexual abuse is to stop assuming all pedophiles are potential rapists

And I'm not assuming that. But I am working under that assumption that the same person will have more problems with pedophile leanings/preferences than one without, because as a society we've decided to make that so. Looking at fictional images can get you arrested. Having a desire to look at images like this is a negative outcome for that person in a societal and legally sense (and possibly in a mental health sense as being told that you have something wrong with you can be debilitating, I'm sure), compared to not having that desire, and this is about creating that desire in an individual.

> But I am working under that assumption that the same person will have more problems with pedophile leanings/preferences than one without, because as a society we've decided to make that so.

To me, this means that we should distigmatize pedophilia in a very careful way - that is, to make it clear that to act on that desire in the real world is a violation of consent. At the moment, the only thing we've done as a society is to act as though these desires are exceedingly rare, that those desires posses the holder to act impulsively (while, simultaneously, erecting the idea of the plotting and cunning pedophile), and that without any more research, that fiction may lead to certain conclusions in that person's mind.

The reason why video game violence is brought up so much is for two reasons; firstly, because we don't have solid evidence on the effects of how (a) pedophiles understand such media (b) previously-offending pedophiles understand such media (c) how non-pedophiles but interested parties understand such media (d) how non-pedophiles and non-interest parties understand such media. For (a), the closest evidence we have (as far as I know) is (b). For (c), we have some ethnographic evidence from Japan that consumers of such fiction draw a sharp distinction between the "2D" and "3D" worlds. For (d) we only have some evidence that ordinary people are not conditioned to associate sexual descriptions to scantily-clad, real, underage children. Secondly, it's brought up because video games (and by extension horror movies, and even adult pornography) have exposed the idea that desires for what is seen may not leave the hypothesized impact on the viewer. What was previously thought of as obvious by a succession of moral panics around violent movies and later video games has been shown to be nothing more than that.

Is more research required? Absolutely - I don't think anyone can argue with that. However, research which focuses on pedophilic orientations only through the lens of convicted offenders (i.e. those who have sexually abused children, or accessed real world child pornography) does not do the topic justice. I think it's fair to say that this is comparable to similar situations - not to say that this comparison is binding or solid evidence, only a hint in the direction of a conclusion - of how people enjoy simulated rape pornography, and how people enjoy fantastical pornography. For those studies, at least, we are able to access the adult-attraction equivalents of group (c) and (d).

I'm in a strange position myself in this debate - I don't believe that moralism is the way forward, but I also (and I think along with you) don't believe that non-moral solutions can work well in our current society. The question is, for me, to what extent a pedophile can recognize that child abuse is wrong, but still express themselves sexually, to be comfortable with their sexuality.

Still, I think my point still stands. To imprison a fiction author on a tenuous basis is wrong, because it invoves the notion of collective responsibility, the notion that the author has contributed to an 'atmosphere' is by that measure guilty. The fact that many other (pedophiles with no desire to offend, non-pedophiles with no desire to offend) enjoy the material, and can be reasonably expected to be the primary audience of the material is enough to even absolve the creator of the material morally - never mind legally.

On the weight of what I see as the available evidence, analogous (video games, other forms of pornography, kink communities) or otherwise (studies of fictional CSEM fans in Japan), the presumption should be in favour of non-regulation, especially given the stasticts on who child sexual abusers are in reality.