Political CV

THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
by Diana E.H. Russell, Ph.D.
Written September 2004

DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT OBTAINING MY PERMISSION.

Introduction and Background:

I sent this manuscript to my editor at Routledge Publishers in September 2004. Unfortunately, I was very late in meeting my deadline for many reasons, especially my intense involvement in initiating a campaign against the richest landlord in Berkeley (after UC Berkeley) for his 15-year exploitation of minor sexual slaves imported from India -- among other crimes.

My editor had just quit her position at Routledge to accept a job at the New York University Press, so my manuscript remained unread while Routledge searched for a new editor. By January of 2005, a new editor had still not been hired, so I wrote to Mary McGinnis, the Vice President of Routledge to ask her what I should do about this. I feared if I revised the manuscript before I had an editor, she might well request that I revise it yet again. Ms. McGinnis told me to go ahead and revise it. Meanwhile, she said she would also like to see my manuscript.

Less than a week later, she called me and declared that, "There is no way that Routledge will be associated with a book of this nature." "Why not?" I asked her. "It's the branding issue," she replied. "What do you mean?" I asked her, but she didn't explain. I interpreted her statement to mean that she didn't want Routledge to become known for publishing such a shocking book. It included many sexually explicit child pornography stories written for pedophiles, as well as descriptions of child pornography, including gross cartoons, all of which were legal.

I told Ms. McGinnis that I was willing to remove the material that bothered her, but she insisted that she had discussed the issue with members of the staff, and she wasn't willing to reconsider. She resolutely held to her position despite my continued pleas. Since my manuscript was late, I had broken our contract, so I knew she would have this excuse to disregard it. Of course, this wasn't a genuine concern for her, since she had told me that I should go ahead and revise my manuscript. She said that she would help me find another publisher for this book. However, she did not follow through on this promise.

I contacted my previous editor at New York University Press to ask if she and this publishing house would be interested in publishing Stolen Innocence. It so happened that New York University Press had published the major social scientific book on child pornography in recently. So she said that there would be no interest in publishing a book that would be in competition with this volume.

I considered suing Routledge for breach of contract, since the lateness issue was obviously not the real reason for refusing to give me a chance to revise my manuscript. A respected colleague advised me not to, because she believed this would make it next to impossible to find another publisher, as well as jeopardizing publishers' interest in future projects of mine.

Stolen Innocence: The Damaging Effects of Child Pornography
Appendix : Definitions and Terminology

The definitions below are organized into two categories: I. Pornography-related definitions; and II. Child sexual abuse-related definitions. My preferred definitions are italicized to facilitate readers finding them while reading this book. This chapter begins with the definitions considered most important, then proceeds to the less important terms that are presented in alphabetical order.

It was only in 1978 that child pornography in the United States was "legally distinguished from other forms of pornography and obscenity and defined according to a stricter standard" (Linz and Imrich, 2001, p. 80). Currently, the legal definitions of child pornography in the United States vary from state to state and under federal law. In 1996, the Child Pornography Prevention Act expanded the federal definition of child pornography to include computer-generated material -- as follows:

Child pornography is "... any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" (Linz and Imrich , 2001, p. 80. "New digital child porn law,").

This new Federal Government's definition of child pornography permits the prosecution of pornographers who produce, distribute or sell computer-generated child pornography -- despite the fact that no actual children are victimized in its production. However, in May 2002, the Supreme Court judged this law to be unconstitutional.

It would be helpful if researchers on child pornography could agree on a definition. I reviewed at least 50 different definitions of child pornography in the hope that I could find one, or adapt one, that I considered appropriate. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate even one definition that I found satisfactory. The definition I devised is as follows:

Child pornography refers to sexualized visual, written, or audio representations (including computer-generated visuals) of minors who are, or who appear to be, under the age of 18. These representations are produced for the primary purpose of sexually arousing and gratifying the viewer(s). This is what distinquishes them from most mainstream sexualized images of children, many of which are primarily designed to sell products.

Some innocent representations of minors become pornographic only because of the sexual context in which they are situated. For example, a photograph of a naked child in a family photo album is not pornographic unless the child's genitals are displayed so as to sexualize the child and arouse/gratify the viewer(s). However, the same non-sexually explicit* naked photo published in Hustler magazine would qualify as child pornography. [*Footnote: see Chapter 3, p. for a definition of sexually explicit.]

My definition of child pornography is not limited to sexually explicit material since there are many pictorial representations of children on and off the Internet that, although not sexually explicit, are designed for males who seek out visual child pornography for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification.

Visual child pornography may be found in photographs, films, negatives, videos, movies, drawings, paintings, computers or computer-generated images or pictures, "whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means" (Ch. 110. Sexual exploitation and other abuse of children. §2256. Definitions for chapter, p. 1). This source also includes "undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image."

Written child pornography may be found in jokes, stories, novels, fantasies, letters, diaries, captions, titles, books, songs, poems, film scripts, etc., while audio child pornography may be heard in speech, audio-tapes, videotapes, movies, songs, etc.

The term "sexual context" when applied to child pornography refers to visual, written, or audio representations of minors which the pornography industry decides is child pornography. Their decisions are typically revealed by the setting in which the images are situated, for example, on a pornographic website, in a pornographic magazine or video, or in a pornography store.

Child pornography ranges from mild softcore material (e.g., naked, posed, sexualized or sexually objectified, seductive portrayals of children and/or sexually lewd captions/words and/or language) to the most extreme hardcore material (e.g., violent and sexually explicit depictions of the beating, rape, sexual torture, and murder of babies).

In contrast to my definition of child pornography, most researchers and legislators, including the Federal Government, limit their definitions to pictures that are sexually explicit (i.e., the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," Ch. 110. Sexual exploitation and other abuse of children. $2256, p. 1). Most of them also fail to define what they mean by this term. My definition includes pictorial representations of children on and off the Internet that, although not sexually explicit, are designed for people who seek out visual child pornography for the purpose of sexual arousal and/or gratification.

In addition, most definitions of child pornography, including the Federal Government's, do not include written or audio material -- despite the fact that child pornography users also seek out these materials for sexual arousal and/or gratification.

2. Computer-Generated Child Pornography/Virtual Child Pornography/Simulated Child Pornography

The terms computer-generated child pornography, virtual child pornography, and simulated child pornography, are inter-changeable. I tend to use the term term computer-generated because its meaning is clear from the words themselves, and therefore the most reader-friendly. Stuart Taylor (2001, March 19) defines this genre of child pornography as "images that look exactly like children engaging in sexual conduct but are created by computers, without using real children" ( p. 51). This innovation has enabled pornographers to manufacture child pornography that is not based on the actual sexual abuse of children.

In 1996, the Federal Government defined computer-generated child pornography as any visual depiction that "'has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct'" (Lanning, 2001, p. ?65; emphasis added). This version of the Federal Government's definition still applies today. [*Footnote: Either of these definitions seems satisfactory to me, although I have a preference for the Federal Government's delineation of three different ways in which computer-generated materials can be altered.]

A recent government document on the Internet defined sexually explicit conduct as "actual or simulated

(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." (Ch. 110. Sexual exploitation and other abuse of children. $2256. Definitions for chapter. p. 1).

Hence, we see that the federal law requires at least the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" to qualify as sexually explicit. This means, as Lanning points out, that, "Under most state statutes and the current federal law (18 U.S.C.A. $ 2256), pictures of children portraying simple nudity are not generally considered sexually explicit or obscene" (p. 76). In contrast, my definition does include pictures of nude children situated in a pornographic context. I avoid using the concept of obscenity altogether.

Some researchers use the term "simulated child pornography" instead of "pseudo-child pornography." However, since the phrase "simulated child pornography" is also used to connote computer-generated child pornography, the term pseudo-child pornography will be used in this volume.

Liz Kelly introduced the term childify to refer to the ways in which adult women are sometimes deliberately infantalized as for example in pseudo-child pornography "by being made to appear as if they are children" (Kelly et al., 1995, p. 41). For example, they are dressed in childish clothes, given childish hairstyles (e.g., two pony tails), impersonate child-like facial expressions and poses. They are often pictured clutching a teddy bear or doll and/or surrounded by children's toys. Frequently some or all of their pubic hair is removed. The photos or drawings usually have titles and captions that contribute to the childified portrayals.

Negley and Wamboldt note that, "Since women are frequently portrayed as young girls in sexually explicit poses, it would seem this particular pornographic theme has wide appeal" (p. 1). These authors suggest that these portrayals give the illusion of innocence -- a desirable male fantasy "from time immemorial" (p. 2). They also make the interesting observation, "that in none of the visuals and comics are men portrayed as boys," revealing the importance to men that they remain men while "women are reduced to children" (p. 1).

Negley and Wamboldt make the plausible suggestion that men's desire to childify women could reflect their angry reaction to women gaining power in what they regard as "the men's world" (p. 1). These authors point out that one way that threatened men can try to "put women back in their place" -- below men, is "to portray them as children, or without the capabilities and power of an adult women" (p. 1).

Pedophiles constitute another major market for pseudo-child pornography, especially those who have some reason for not wanting to access genuine child pornography, such as avoiding any risk of purchasing illegal material, or not wanting to see themselves as fans of real child pornography, or having moral or religious scruples about obtaining such material.

Some -- perhaps many -- viewers of pseudo-child pornography may not have considered accessing child pornography before. However, viewing pseudo-child pornography may be the first step toward transitioning into child pornography -- whether out of curiosity or because of developing an attraction to women who are, or who appear to be, minors. (For example, see the description of Baby Breese who looks 12 years old despite her actual age of 20 (Chapter 14, p. ). In short, pseudo-child pornography can expand the audience base for child pornography.

Adult pornography magazines, including the most widely known three -- Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and Barely Legal -- increasingly select or require that some of their nude women "models" childify themselves by shaving off all or most of their pubic hair. Pedophiles have always found hairless children's genitals a turn-on. What does it mean when increasing numbers of adult males also want the pictures of women in pornography to have hairless or relatively hairless genitals? In addition, what does it mean that some young men now want the women who become their sex partners to shave their pubic hair? It presumably means that there is a growing trend for men to find child-like female genitals more arousing than adult women's hairy genitals.

Could it be that the widespread exposure of many males to child pornography on the Internet has influenced their notions of sexually attractive women? Or are there other factors in U.S. culture that are causing men to find childified women more appealing? Whatever the answer to these questions, we can be sure that with millions of males masturbating to pictures of women with little or no pubic hair, growing numbers of them are now wanting their female sex partners to follow the example of women in the pornography industry.

Consider the disturbing example described in the following testimony by Ms. S who was a member of a group of formerly prostituted women.

Ms. S was "in a room with two clients. One of the men told her that he had seen some pictures of women who had shaved their pubic hair and that it had turned him on. They [the two men] then proceeded with a jackknife to remove the woman's pubic hair, plucking and burning what the knife had missed. They made comments about how her hairless vagina reminded them of their young daughters' genitals. They then engaged in intercourse." (Russell, date, p. )

Some young women are complying to this new manifestation of male taste. This is a striking example of how the portrayals of women in pornography can become mainstreamized in sexual norms and practices in the culture in general. Similarly, a couple of decades ago, sadomasochistic and bondage pornography became mainstreamized in non-pornographic fashions.

Osanka and Johann (1985) identify diaper sex as a genre of pseudo-child pornography (p. 452). They report that there are magazines and videos devoted to diaper sex in which adults dress like babies, crawl around in diapers, and perform sex acts. The term infantalize is more appropriate than "childify" for this kind of material.

"Amateur pornography" refers to members of the public (not professional photographers) who send pornography pictures they have taken to a magazine or other outlet on or off the Internet.

Lanning (2001) notes that "Many investigators had begun using the term 'child erotica' to refer only to visual images of naked children that were not considered pornography" (p. 66). In contrast, he defines child erotica as "any material, relating to children, that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual" (p. 65). Lanning includes "fantasy writings, letters, diaries, books, sexual aids, souvenirs, toys, costumes, drawings, and nonsexually explicit visual images" (pp. 66-67).

However, Lanning's definition of child erotica does not succeed in differentiating it from child pornography since child pornography also "serves a sexual purpose for a given individual."

The distinction between adult pornography and adult erotica is very important (see Russell, 1993), but in my opinion, this concept is inappropriate when applied to child pornography. The term erotica has been used by several researchers to refer to non-sexually abusive material, whether applied to children or adults. Written pornographic fantasies do not qualify by this definition. Similarly, many pedophiles obtain ejaculatory satisfaction from masturbating to nude pictures of children that Lanning considers to be erotica. I propose that scholars refrain from using the term erotica in connection with children.

Whetsell-Mitchell (1995) defines child pornography collectors as "those individuals who acquire, amass, preserve, cherish, and value child pornography (Lanning, 1984; Tate, 1990) (p. 202).

These collectors accumulate child pornography pictures and videos for private viewing and masturbatory gratification. Pedophiles who know about the existence of child pornography, and know where to access it, are renowned for being ardent collectors. Those who can afford it typically gather enormous collections of child pornography despite the increased risk in which it places them of being apprehended by law enforcement officers.

Lanning and his colleagues Carol Hartman and Ann Burgess (Child Molesters, 2001) differentiate between the following four types of child-pornography collectors:

a. The closet collector who "keeps his collection a secret and is not actively involved in molesting children" (p. 63).

b. The isolated collector who "is actively molesting children as well as collecting child pornography or erotica [defined below]. Fear of discovery overrides his need for active validation and causes him to keep his activity a secret between only himself and his victims. His collection may include pictures of his victims taken by him as well as material from other sources." (p. 63)

c. The cottage collector "shares his collection and sexual activities with other individuals. This is usually done primarily to validate his behavior, and money or profit is not a significant factor. Photographs, videotapes, and 'war stories' are swapped and traded with other child molesters, and sometimes unknowingly with undercover investigators." (p. 63).

d. The commercial collector "recognizes the monetary value of his collection and sells his duplicates to other collectors. Although profit is an important motive, these individuals are usually active sexual molesters themselves" (p. 63).

Lanning emphasizes that this typology "predated widespread public use of the Internet" (p. 63). Unfortunately, he does not explain what impact this would have on the typology.

Homemade child pornography refers to child pornography that was not originally produced for commercial sale (Lanning (2000), p. 64). Lanning notes that "the Internet has tended to blur" the distinction between homemade and commercial child pornography. Presumably this blurring has occurred because anyone is free to include homemade material distributed on the Internet in collections that they sell.

Whereas women and children who engage in sexual activity for payment are called prostitutes -- a label that carries considerable stigma -- those who engage in sexual activity in front of a camera for payment are typically called pornography actresses, pornography models, and pornography performers. A lucky few are turned into so-called "porn stars" by the pornography industry. All these euphemistic terms contribute to the legitimization of pornography. The term pornography prostitute is a far more appropriate substitute for them.

The blatant irrationality of the flattering terms used to describe pornography prostitutes highlights a gross double standard reflecting patriarchal contempt for prostitutes as "bad women" -- including child prostitutes -- and the patriarchal delusion that women and adolescents in pornography as "just fantasies." Many men and some women are proud public supporters of pornography including their use of and/or their familiarity with it, whereas men who frequent prostitutes do not volunteer this information willingly or proudly for public consumption.

Every attempt should be made to avoid colluding with this double standard. We must use the term pornography prostitute instead of pornography actress, pornography model, pornography performer, and/or pornography star.

My preferred definitions of hardcore and softcore child pornography is an adapted version of Jenkins' definitions: Softcore child pornography features nudity but no sexual activity, while hard-core child pornography features sex acts or shows children in lewd poses (2001, p. 81). Jenkins (2001) notes that "Some popular [web]sites even reproduce decades of Sears ads for panties and swimsuits or show publicity photos of young gymnasts" -- presumably for the pedophile market (p. 81). Jenkins (2001) points out that these pictures "become 'pornographic' only through their setting and their juxtaposition to masturbatory images" (p. 81). With regard to child pornography on the web, Jenkins (2001) suggests that "Probably the most common type of soft-core photographs involves nude young girls in innocent and non-sexual settings" (p. ).

"homemade hardcore [child pornography pictures] are the worst of the breed, because they depict ongoing acts of rape and molestation by culprits who are still active and presumably still exploiting victims.... Most of the girl subjects are aged between perhaps eight and thirteen, but others involve much smaller children, down to toddlers. Because of the age of the subjects, most of the sex acts involved do not involve penetration but show the girls performing oral sex or mutual masturbation." (pp. 82-83).

Many clinicians who treat sex offenders, law enforcement personnel, media representatives and members of the public routinely use the term pedophile to refer to all adults who sexually abuse children (see Lanning, p. 16). Indeed, Lanning maintains that even some professionals in the field use the terms pedophile and child molester as if they are synonymous (p. 19; e.g., Ray Wyre). This practice obscures the important differences between pedophiles and perpetrators whose primary sexual preference is for adults (further discussion of the term child molester to follow).

Lanning notes that "while pedophiles prefer to have sex with children, they can and do have sex with adults" (p. 17). This overstatement denies that there are any pedophiles who have only had sex with children. In contrast, the DSM-IV TM differentiates between nonexclusive pedophiles -- "who are sometimes attracted to adults," and exclusive pedophiles, "who are only sexually attracted to children" (p. 527).

Some researchers confine the term pedophile to adults who are primarily or exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. For example, the American Psychological Association defines pedophilia "as a disorder in which an adult's primary sexual attraction is to prepubescent children, generally age 13 and under." (Cited by Healy, Margaret A., 2002, February 27, p. 3). World Congress against). Note that this definition does not require that the pedophile act out this attraction.

Other researchers and law enforcement officers (according to Margaret Healy, 2002, February 27, pp. 3-4) employ the term pedophile for adults who are attracted to both preadolescents and adolescents below the age of consent, i.e., 18 years in California -- as also do I, Lanning and Healy (pp. 3-4).

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TM) (1994) does not have a succinct definition of pedophilia, unless the opening to the lengthy summary statement about this disorder can be so considered, i.e., that "pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger)" (p. 527). However, this "definition" is inconsistent with the first of three diagnostic criteria for pedophilia described by the DSM-IV TM as involving "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors"... that last "over a period of at least 6 months" (p. 528; emphasis added). By this criterion, pedophilia includes males who have sexual fantasies and urges toward children that they do not act out.

Furthermore, six months seems far-too-brief a period to qualify as a defining feature of pedophilia. A man whose primary erotic inclination has been toward physically mature women for all but six months of his life should rather qualify as having a primarily "normal" heterosexual orientation.

With regard to the age of pedophiles, the DSM-IV TM states that they must be 16 years or older, "and at least 5 years older than the child," whereas for pedophiles in late adolescence, "no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account" (p. 527).

Although researchers and official bodies like the American Psychological Association and the DSM-IV TM do not include being a collector of child pornography as a defining feature or common characteristic of pedophiles, many law enforcement investigators report that "paedophiles almost always collect child pornography" (Lanning, p. 61). For example, the Sexually Exploited Children's Unit of the Los Angeles Police Department maintains that "Those who collect child pornography are likely to be active paedophiles" (Tate, p. 109). Differentiating between regular and occasional customers of child pornography, Joyce Karlin claims that "We have to realise that a regular customer for child pornography is a paedophile" (Cited in Tate, p. 243).

However, Lanning (2001) maintains that there are pedophiles "who collect child pornography without physically molesting children" (p. 29). (Unfortunately, he provides no information on, or estimation of, the prevalence of this type of child pornography collector.) Lanning also notes that non-pedophilic child molesters also collect child pornography, although "not with the high degree of predictability" of the pedophile (p. 61). He therefore emphasizes that "investigators should always consider the possibility that any child molester might collect child pornography," and not assume that all collectors are always pedophiles (p. 61).

It is also important to remember that pedophiles do not automatically know about the existence of child pornography. They have to discover it. Pedophile John Ferguson whose testimony is included in Chapter 7, describes his discovery -- first of adult pornography when he was 18, then of child pornography in his early twenties. He describe the tremendous impact it had on him and "on the offenses I've committed." There is no way of knowing how many pedophiles never find out. Presumably, increasing numbers of them discover it, and at earlier ages, as use of the Internet becomes more widespread. Nevertheless, millions of people in the United States are barely literate in English -- and many millions more are not computer-literate. Clearly, many pedophiles exist in these populations. Furthermore, no one, including law enforcement investigators, knows the child pornography practices of pedophiles who never attract attention.

Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say at this time in history, that pedophiles who are computer literate and have access to a computer are almost always avid collectors of child pornography. Those who have no access to it, are presumably potential users and/or collectors.

Feminists Louise Armstrong (personal communication, date) and Liz Kelly et al., object to use of the term pedophile. Both opted instead for the term child molester. For example, Kelly et al., (date) write that

"We strongly believe that to adopt this terminology [pedophile] will foreclose much needed discussion and debate, and abandon much of the hard-won knowledge of the last decade. We list below our misgivings about the adoption of 'paedophile' as a concept." (pp. 18-19)

"rather than enabling recognition of abusers as 'ordinary men' -- fathers, brothers, uncles, colleagues -- we are in danger of returning to the more comfortable view of them as 'other', fundamentally different, not 'normal' men;

"attention shifts from issues of power and control to notions of sexual deviance, obsession and 'addiction', thus paedophilia medicalises and individualises what is clearly a social issue concerning the construction of masculinity and male sexuality ...."

"the view ... that paedophilia is a particular 'sexual orientation' prevents us seeing the commonness of 'sexual arousal' to children ....

"separating 'paedophiles' from other men who sexually abuse means we both presume the differences between them, and fail to notice similarities -- in the kinds of acts involved, in the ways they entrap and control children." (p. 18)

Although Kelly et al.'s reasons for rejecting the term pedophile are very persuasive, there is nevertheless a serious problem with using the term child molester for the entire gamut of perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Some adult males who are sexually oriented to adult women, may sexually abuse a child once, whereas others sexually abuse hundreds of children. Furthermore, the term child molester cannot be used for males who fantasize about sex with youngsters and/or who are sexually aroused by them, but do not act out their fantasies or desires.

Because the term pedophile means child lover (or "loli-lover" in pedophile lingo), which is how pedophiles like to view themselves -- I wanted to formulate an alternative non-euphemistic word for this disorder. Following are some of the terms I and a few colleagues devised: pedopredator, pedosexual, pedoluster, pedomolester, pedolecher, and pedoexploiter (Schroder; Kheel). Three of these terms exclude pedophile fantasizers who do not act out their attraction to children. This leaves pedosexual, pedoluster and pedolecher as the most suitable terms. However, the concept of pedophile is so well-known and has such powerful negative connotations -- that despite the original meaning of the word -- I decided to use it after all. For the same reason, I chose to stick with the term "pornography" rather than switch to "erotomisogyny" proposed by Robert Brannon as a more appropriate term than pornography because of its inclusion of the misogynistic character of pornography.

Pedophiles are males whose primary or exclusive sexual preference is for preadolescent and/or adolescent children.

There are pedophiles who act out their desires by molesting children and pedophiles who do not. I will use the term pedophilic fantasizers for those pedophiles who do not act out their sexual attraction to children. The term pedophile will be used to refer to those who act out their sexual attraction and/or when there is no information about whether or not they act out/or when referring to individuals with this disorder in general. Although pedophiles also fantasize about sexually abusing children and unknown numbers of pedophilic fantasizers become acting-out pedophiles, these two categories of pedophiles are nevertheless mutually exclusive.

Many pedophiles and pedophilic fantasizers have a preference for children of a specific age range, such as eight to 10-year-olds. In addition, some pedophiles are primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children while others are primarily sexually attracted to postpubescent adolescents. Another characteristic of pedophiles frequently noted by clinicians and researchers is the large numbers of victims that many pedophiles have molested. Faller (1990) includes this characteristic in her definition of pedophiles as "persons whose primary sexual orientation is to children and who, during the course of their sexual careers, are likely to have scores and even hundreds of victims" [p. 18?]).

Kathleen Faller (1990) reports that she has never encountered a female perpetrator who fits the definition of a pedophile (p. 18). Nor, Faller contends, have female pedophiles been described in the sexual abuse literature (p. 18) (Finkelhor makes the same observation [date]). Despite this, several researchers use gender neutral terminology in their definitions of pedophiles.

"Most substantial studies of pedophilic offenders indicate that the majority of offenders show some consistency in the sex of the child chosen and can therefore, be classified as either heterosexual or homosexual pedophiles." (p. 84)

According to the DSM-IVTM, however, some pedophiles "prefer males, other females, and some are aroused by both males and females. Those attracted to females usually prefer 8- to 10-year-olds, whereas those attracted to males usually prefer slightly older children" (p. 527).

Lanning (2001, p. 62) points out that: "In contrast to adult pornography, but consistent with the gender preference of many pedophiles, there is a high percentage of boys in child pornography" (62). Nevertheless, according to the DSM-IVTM, "Pedophilia involving female victims is reported more often than Pedophilia involving male victims" (p. 527). On the other hand, the DSM-IV TM notes that while pedophilia is usually a chronic disorder, this is especially the case in those attracted to males (p. 528). This observation is reflected in recidivism rates for pedophiles, with those having a preference for male children being "roughly twice that for those who prefer females" (p. 528). No explanations are offered for these provocative generalities about gender. Perhaps the fact that pedophiles who prefer males have already broken one taboo by their preference, more easily accept continuing to violate another taboo.

Park Dietz and Alan Sears (1987/1988) define hebephiles as "persons particularly attracted to postpubescent children (adolescents)" (p. 28, fn 47). While Kurt Freund also defines this term as, "an erotic preference for pubescents" of approximately 11 to 14 for girls and 15 or 16 for boys (p. 161). The terms hebephile and ephebophile share the same meaning. However, Lanning (2001) notes that both of these terms "are used far less often" than pedophilia (p. 15). He also maintains that,

"Although sexual attraction to pubescent children by adults has the obvious potential for criminal activity, it does not necessarily constitute a sexual perversion as defined by psychiatry" (p. 16).

"Whether such attraction ought to be regarded as abnormal is a debatable point, for attraction to sexually mature members of the opposite sex of the same species is biologically normal. It is not even clear that our culture, which proscribes sexual activity with those below the age of consent, condemns sexual attraction to these persons." (p. 28, footnote 47)

It would be interesting to know if Dietz and Sears would consider it equally normal for adult women to be sexually attracted to adolescent boys.

Like several other definitions mentioned above, my use of the term pedophile incorporates hebophilies. Both these sexual preferences are illegal.

Despite the fact that Kelly et al. (1995) criticize the use of the term pedophile, they nevertheless make the following distinction between a child molester and a pedophile:

"A child molester is an individual who sexually molests children. A pedophile might have a sexual preference for children and fantasize about having sex with them, but if he does not act on that preference or those fantasies, he is not a child molester." (p. 19)

Kelly et al.'s definitions of pedophile and child molester imply that when a pedophile sexually acts out, he becomes a child molester. This renders the term pedophile as a potentially transitory one. However, it's important that this term is defined as a stable disorder of males who have a sexual preference for children.

Lanning's conceptions of child molester and pedophile are problematic for the same reason as Kelly et al.'s. For example, he writes that "Many child molesters are, in fact, pedophiles, and many pedophiles are child molesters" (pp. 19-20). While Lanning's statement is undoubtedly correct, the solution to this conceptual problem is to abandon using the term "child molester" as a type of sexual abuser of children. For want of a better alternative, I advocate using the term pedophile -- which I defined above -- and the term non-pedophilic child sexual abuser/child molester for an adult who has a sexual preference for other adults but who nevertheless has sexually abused or molested a child or children. Many incest perpetrators belong in this category.

Lanning suggests the following reasons that a non-pedophilic child molester may decide to sexually abuse a child, for example, "simple availability, opportunity, curiosity, or a desire to hurt a loved one of the molested child" (p. 19).

Some researchers and clinicians use the term sexual offender against children instead of child molester. I confine my use of the term sexual offender to perpetrators who have been apprehended or incarcerated by the criminal justice system.

The terms child and minor are synonymous. Lanning (2001) points out that the "legal definition[s] of who is considered a child or minor vary from state-to-state and even statute-to-statute when dealing with adolescent victims" (p. 12). While noting that "Many people using the term sexual abuse of children have a mental image of children 12 or younger," and that "16-year-olds may be socially and physically more like 26-year-old young adults than 6-year-old children" (p. 12), Lanning nevertheless opts to define a child "as someone who has not yet reached his or her eighteenth birthday" (p. 12). This is the definition in California where I am located, and it is the definition of a "child" that I have chosen despite the fact that many more states define "child" as someone who is less than 16 years old.

Lanning (2001), notes that, "Cases involving multiple child victims are sometimes referred to as child sex rings.... defined as one or more offenders simultaneously involved sexually with several child victims" (p. 47). Interestingly, "Boys are more likely to be victimized in sex rings than girls" (Faller (1990) Understanding Child Sexual) p. 46, citing Burgess et al. 1984), p. 46. The explanation for this is unclear. Perhaps it is because boys are allowed considerably more freedom than girls to come and go from their homes as they please. Another possibility is that boys are more sexually stimulated than girls would be by the pornography that pedophiles in sex rings typically show them for seductive and blackmail purposes. In addition, it could be that their efforts to be macho make it less likely that they will show their distress about participating in the sex ring in front of their peers and the older boys in the sex ring. Efforts to be macho may also make boys less likely than girls to disclose their distress to a friend or member of their family.

Liz Kelly et al., (1995) make the excellent recommendation that the term "child sexual abuse rings" be used instead of "child sex rings" because "the purpose of the ring is sexual abuse" (p. 19). My definition of a child sex abuse ring starts with a slight modification of Lanning's definition quoted above:

A child sexual abuse ring entails one or more pedophile simultaneously involved sexually with several child victims. Adult or child pornography is typically used to seduce the children who are frequently required to have sex with each other. The sexual episodes between the children and with the pedophile(s) are usually photographed for the production of child pornography.

6. Child Sexual Abuse, Child Sexual Victimization, Child Sexual Exploitation, Child Sexual Maltreatment

Some researchers differentiate between the concepts of child sexual abuse, child sexual victimization, child sexual maltreatment, child sexual misuse, and child sexual exploitation, whereas others do not. The term sexual exploitation, in particular, has often been used to imply "a commercial or monetary element in the victimization" (Lanning, p. 10). For example, The Council of Europe defined sexual exploitation as "the sexual use for economic purposes of a child or a young person, which violates, directly or indirectly human dignify and sexual freedom and endangers his/her psycho-sexual development" (1991, p. 15; check date).

Lanning, however, disagrees that child sexual exploitation "necessarily involve[s] commercial or monetary gain" (p. 10). Many pedophiles swap or give away some of their pornographic photographs of children to their pedophile brothers. Their purpose in collecting child pornography usually has nothing to do with monetary gain.

"sexual exploitation of children is not easily separable from other forms of sexual abuse in childhood, since it can be an aspect of ongoing abuse by a family member/known adult as well as independent of this; it can occur in single and multiple offender contexts. For these reasons I regard it as dangerous to create classifications of sexual abuse which are constructed as mutually exclusive categories." (p. 71)

Kelly's point is well taken. Of all the terms cited above (child sexual abuse, child sexual victimization, child sexual maltreatment, child sexual misuse, and child sexual exploitation), I will use the term sexual abuse for the less extreme forms of sexual victimization since I believe of all the above terms, it is used most frequently. And I will use the term child sexual victimization as an umbrella term to cover all experiences of child sexual abuse including the more extreme experiences such as child rape, child abduction for sexual purposes, use of children in pornography, use of children in prostitution, the sexual torture of children, child sexual mutilation, child sexual slavery, the purchase and/or sale of children for sexual purposes, the trafficking in children for sexual purposes, the incarceration of children in private dungeons or boxes for sexual purposes, and the sexual murder of children.

Most researchers require there to be at least a five-year age difference for a sexual experience between children or juveniles or an adult and a juvenile to qualify as a case of child sexual abuse. The criterion I used in my book on incestuous abuse of girls was more complicated. I reasoned that even a one year difference between siblings can signify a significant power disparity, particularly when combined with gender (i.e., older male, younger female), and therefore can qualify as sexually abusive -- if several other conditions are also met:

a. the sexual encounters were not being imposed on the children by some other more powerful individual (as in sexual abuse rings and in some incest families, for example);
b. the adult or older child takes the initiative in the sexual encounter;
c. the older child is male and the younger child is female;
d. the experience is unwanted by the younger child;
e. the experience is upsetting to the younger child;
f. the experience is described as having negative effects by the younger child, at the time or retrospectively.

"Extrafamilial child sexual abuse" is defined as unwanted sexual experiences with persons unrelated by blood or marriage, ranging from attempted or actual touching of breasts or genitals to rape, sexual torture, sexual slavery, etc., before the victim turns 18 years old.

The term "incestuous abuse" is defined as any kind of exploitive sexual contact or attempted contact that occurs between relatives before the victim turns 18 years old. Experiences involving sexual contact with a relative that are wanted and with a peer (for example, mutual sex play between siblings or cousins of the same age) are regarded as nonexploitive and hence nonabusive. The term "incest" is reserved for these cases.

Jenkins (2001) notes "... how desperately child porn fans wish to believe they are dealing with consenting partners. The illusion of consent is so strong that a fierce reaction greets any contradictory evidence" (p. 136).

For example, a pedophile responded angrily to being told that he needed help by saying:

"Give me a break, what the fuck would i do if this stuff was removed. It's harmless[.] [I]f the girls are forced to have sex, than (sic) it's illegal, but if they consent to do it, and know what they are doing, then to me it's [by] fine" (Carolyn Downes, 1996, p. 1)

Most pedophiles have no understanding of the enormous power their adulthood connotes to children, thereby rendering their standard rationale -- that unforced adult-child sexual relations qualify as consenting -- totally inappropriate.

Abel et al. ( ) distinguishes four major issues involved in informed consent between children and adults:

1. "Does the child understand what he or she consents to?
2. "Is the child aware of the accepted sexual standards in his or her community?
3. "Does the child appreciate the eventual, possible consequences of the decision? and
4. "Are the child and the adult equally powerful so that no coercion influences the child's decision?" (p. 94)

Abel et al.'s final question is absurd because the answer is obviously always "No," equal power between a child and an adult is impossible. The angry pedophile also acknowledged that for a child to consent to sexual relations with an adult, s/he must know what s/he is doing. In this case, the first three of Abel et al.'s questions would have to be answered in the affirmative.

In short, informed consent to adult-child sex and/or juvenile-child sex is impossible because of the power disparity inherent in such relationships, and because the child does not appreciate the eventual negative consequences of her/his decision to obey the requests or demands of the adult. In some cases the child also does not understand what s/he is being asked to consent to and/or s/he is not aware of the accepted community standards about adult/child sex.

An example of a child being uninformed about the accepted standards about adult/child sex in her/his community often occurs when incestuous fathers tell their young daughters that all fathers have sex with their daughters to teach them how to satisfy a man when they grow up. This common manipulative rationale also constitutes an example of Abel et al.'s first three factors differentiated in the passage on informed consent above. Pedophiles are typically unaware of, or in denial about all four of these factors when they claim that children can consent to sex with adults.

Jenkins (2001) notes that "the subjects of child pornography cannot give any form of informed or legal consent to their involvement in this trade ...." (p. 4). This is because child pornography is illegal. However, even if it were legal, the same reasons that I enumerated with regard to the impossibility of children giving informed consent to adult-child sex would apply to children giving informed consent to participate in pornography.

An example of a young girl being unable to appreciate the eventual consequences of her decision to participate in the manufacture of child pornography is her failure to understand that the photographs taken of her can be used to bribe her to remain in an abusive sexual relationship with an adult perpetrator and/or pornographer.

A child who agrees to submit to being photographed by a perpetrator/pornographer will typically also fail to understand the negative consequences of these sexual photographs being posted on the Internet to circulate throughout the world with no possibility of ever being removed.

In addition, Jenkins (2001) surmises that, "even when children are just depicted nude, they are subject to actual molestation" afterwards (p. 4). I would qualify this statement by supposing that children photographed nude are at greater risk of being sexually abused by the photographer after the photography session than those who do not.

Furthermore, children are unable to understand the negative consequences of viewing pornography such as their being brainwashed to believe harmful myths about female and male sexuality and relationships (see Russell's theory in Chapter 10).

Child pornographers and/or perpetrators of child sexual abuse also typically normalize the viewing of pornography to their child victims and/or their use of children in the manufacture of child pornography thereby deceiving them about the accepted community standards regarding these forms of victimization (see Russell's theory in Chapter 10).

I frequently use the term "male" instead of man when I wish to include male juveniles in the same category as adult men. But I cannot claim total consistency about this usage. Sometimes when I use the term man or men I mean it to be understood that juveniles might also be included.

Nepiofile refers to someone who has a sexual attraction to infants. Nepiophilia refers to a condition characterized by the sexual attraction to infants.