#1 Pornography: We know what pornography is, and we know who uses it. You do. I do. The whole damn world does and always has. What was the first thing Caveman Jack did after stubbing his toe on that monolith? Carved himself a little whalebone woman, and got hisself a boner. Pornography, known by feminists and WH Smiths as erotica, is primarily a lubricant for humankind’s built in safety valve – a highly flexible and effective stabilisation tool known as ‘the wank’. Feeling horny, desperately so? Got a partner to hand? No? Well what do you normally do, slip out for a spot of rape? I think not – a civilised individual reaches for the gentle comforts of one off the wrist. I think we can agree that if there was less wanking there’d be more predatory sexual practices.

#2 Child: Most people know what a child is. The British government seems confused however, deciding in the new Sexual Offences Act that 16 and 17 year olds are children – so don’t take any lewd photos of your teen partners folks – but most rational people would decide that a child is a small human being with a vicious temper and a ruthless logic who is not yet 16 years old.

Simple concepts – but place them together and something unusual happens. For, according to the police, academia and the press, ‘child porn’ can involve voyeuristic photographs of children that are entirely non-pornographic – snapshots from the beach for instance – as well as undoubtedly pornographic images that don’t involve children, but merely Photoshopped representations of children, or even cartoons.

In fact, what’s commonly defined as child porn ranges through toddlers paddling, to clothing catalogue models, to digitally fabricated images, to out-and-out images of real child abuse. The only factor that links these images, is that they can all be used for sexual satisfaction by those that get off on it. That seems a trembling, subjective definition, but it feels intuitively valid. After all, we can all take an erotic charge from odd things – a remembered experience, a whiff of the right perfume. But note, most of that that is defined as child porn, and forms the bulk of seized images from the hard disks of aficionados, does not derive from actual child abuse. Yet we are constantly told that simply looking at child porn harms children – and indeed this is presumably why the simple act of looking at this material is a serious criminal offence. But how? How can looking at a photo of a naked child toddling in the surf harm that child? The photo could be ten years old; the child and parents might not be aware that the photo exists; the child might even be dead – how can they be harmed by the act of looking at a photo? Causality like this might make sense at the quantum level – it doesn’t in the macro-atomic world. When you look at US choppers dropping in flames from the clear Iraqi skies, have you shot them down? Of course not – causality isn’t reversed, even by broadband.

That is not to say of course, that photos of actual abuse cannot be said to be harmful – after all, if you pay for this porn, you’re undoubtedly contributing to its production. If you even ask for photos, or post messages praising them, you’re probably contributing to a culture in which abuse seems acceptable. But this does not cover all material used for erotic purposes by the freaks who get off on it.

Which raises an interesting point, particularly when linked with other findings. I once happened to be chatting, over a very nice burgundy, to a senior member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service . This was in the days before regional police cybercrime units – and NCIS took care of internet child porn back then. This cop – let’s call him Roger, as that’s his name - confided that he’d put dozens of active paedophiles away, and not one had been found in possession of child pornography, whereas the porn freaks he’d locked up hadn’t abused kids. Now clearly, this isn’t sufficient evidence to declare the findings absolute – but it’s an interesting thought no? That the real bastards abuse kids, not porn. And that perhaps, porn satisfies others who might go on to abuse otherwise?
Given that we know that those with less objectionable sexual tendancies use porn to relieve sexual frustration, is it too huge a leap to suggest that some paedophiles do likewise? I suggest not.

So we have two interesting points here; some child porn doesn’t harm children, and child porn can stop some paedophiles harming kids.

A morally objectionable course of action suggests itself. Repellent. But that shouldn’t stop us from considering it. Morally dodgy harm reduction strategies are already official policy in the UK. We shift scagheads onto methadone, principally to reduce their criminal activities, with medical benefits running a poor second. Like paedophilia, heroin addiction takes over a life, harms others besides the addict, transcends moral boundaries and expected codes of human behaviour. The addict is self-obsessed, selfish, amoral, driven – and, as with paedophilia, we believe an addiction to be lifelong; a devil to be controlled at best, rather than permanently defeated.

And yet we supply heroin addicts with an equally dangerous drug. On the NHS. We do this because it is the better of four possible options. Ignoring the addicts, and letting them continue with their crimes. Permanently jailing the addicts. Killing the addicts. Adopting a harm reduction strategy. The comparison with paedophilia is compelling – even the suggested solutions run in parallel. Yet so far, no one has advocated a harm reduction strategy; supplying paedophiles with screened child porn.

It’s easy to see why this strategy hasn’t been suggested. It’s stomach turning. On the other hand, what if this tactic could actually save kids from real abuse? Isn’t it worth supping with the devil, if the devil does you a good enough turn?

In practical terms such a strategy would require administration and monitoring systems that parallel those around the methadone programmes. Child porn addicts would need to accept that they have a problem, would need to undertake counselling and rehabilitation, would need to agree to terms of behaviour – but in return, they’d get their fix, on prescription; a legal and secure child porn online archive, with password protection and screened verified content.

Naturally, the provision of such material is distasteful, and needs to be carefully considered. No material that shows actual child abuse should be acceptable. No material that identifies a child in ‘voyeur’ style photos should be acceptable. In fact, the simplest solution is one that the paedos hit on some years ago. Stock this porn repository with pseudo porn – digitally faked up material. Hell, if Toy Story can draw you in completely, then why not Boy Story…?

The paedos would be happy, no kids would be harmed, the quacks could test their behavioural modification techniques – everyone except the Daily Mail would accept that the best thing about a harm reduction programme, is that harm is reduced.

There is of course a flaw – who would produce the filth? Here is where government polices have already helped. By half-destroying the British IT industry the Labour government has created a ready made pool of Photoshop-savvy professionals who’ll do anything for a buck. A depressing job? Sure, but would it be degrading or dispiriting? Well why? It’s not as if it would be real, is it?

These are absurd times we live in: witch-hunts are all around us, emotion has replaced idealism as the driving energy behind politics, and the fear, perhaps even the terror, or saying a politically incorrect thing has stifled debate. And we need debate. There is even a place for those who want to legalise paedophilia and to reduce the age of consent – disagreeable thought this might be, it’s a viewpoint that should be able to be put. The hysteria around child porn has made reasoned argument next to impossible, and the fear must be that, with all the jailings and sex registers and growing list of sad, lonely men hanging themselves moments after their hard drives are carted off for examination, we’re not getting anywhere. We’re not solving the problem. Radical thinking is called for, and the key component of this is “thinking”!

BlackSword