“In the street they’re real, in a picture they’re not”: Constructions of children and childhood among users of online child sexual exploitation material

Abstract

Background

Research about online child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) users focuses on psychological assessments, demographics, motivations, and offending rates. Little is known about their understandings of children in CSEM.

Objective

From an anthropological perspective, examine CSEM users’ constructions of children and childhood online and offline, and explore how these factor into their crimes.

Participants and setting

CSEM users in UK group programs.

Methods

In-depth ethnography, including 17 months of participant observation in group programs with 81 CSEM users, 31 semi-structured interviews with group participants, and inductive analysis of themes illuminated by childhood theory from anthropology.

Results

When referring to children offline, many participants claimed to align with Euro-American norms and constructions surrounding children’s learning, protection, irrationality, inexperience, asexuality, and innocence. However online, many constructed children differently: as less or not “real,” and as sexualized. This rendered children in CSEM fundamentally different, which facilitated offending, assisted in overcoming barriers, and allowed participants to hold conventional beliefs about children and childhood while engaging in incongruent online activity. Vital in this process was Internet use and associated distancing, detachment, anonymity, and cultural othering. The program used victim empathy to restore dominant norms to online children, for which participants invoked feelings, recognized their role in abuse, extrapolated consequences for victims, and reinforced norms.

Conclusions

Constructions of children and childhood were central in offending. The complexities of negotiating “real” versus “not real” in both offending and victim empathy are discussed, as are conceptual distinctions between “constructions” and “cognitive distortions,” and implications for treatment and prevention.

Introduction

The spread and use of online child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) is a significant problem that proliferates as digital technologies advance (Seto, 2013; Wortley & Smallbone, 2012). Statistics over time illuminate this proliferation. In 1980, the most popular CSEM magazine in the United States was thought to sell 800 copies (Wortley & Smallbone, 2012). In 2014, the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported that there were 23,881,197 obscene images of children online including duplicates (Crawford, 2014). More recently, a Canadian study of CSEM was conducted that included a sample of 46,859 unique children, with 78.3% being younger than 12 (Canadian Centre for Child Protection, 2016). Putting this 46,859 figure in context, as of June 2016, there were 8,994 children from 59 countries identified in Interpol’s CSEM database (Rimer & Prager, 2016). Specifically in the UK, it is suggested that 50,000 people access CSEM (Jütte, Bentley, Miller, & Jetha, 2014).

Researchers have endeavored to explain why and how people use CSEM, and why this has increased with the Internet, with a majority of explanations arising from the psychological sciences. Departing from a psychological perspective, this article stems from 17 months of UK-based anthropological fieldwork in group programs for people arrested for CSEM, and the application of anthropological theory. Emphasizing the uniqueness of the online context, it focuses on an in-depth understanding of participants’ constructions of children and childhood, a comparison of these in offline and online spaces, and an exploration of the place of such constructions in offending. The article also analyzes how constructions were addressed in the group program, and discusses implications for treatment and prevention of offending. Constructions are defined here as ways in which children, childhood, and associated norms are conceptualized, imagined, and created by participants.

Research about CSEM offending has focused on diverse areas, one of which is motivations. Studies report both distinct and overlapping results. Seto (2013) notes that offending can be “paraphilic, hypersexual, compulsive or addictive, or specifically pathological in response to Internet-specific properties” (p. 129). Beech, Elliott, Birgden, and Findlater (2008) similarly summarize motivators as fueling or developing a sexual interest in children, using CSEM as part of a larger offending pattern (e.g., in grooming), impulsivity and curiosity, or other reasons such as financial gain. Quayle and Taylor (2002) identify six motivations in their research with 13 CSEM users: sexual arousal; pleasure in collecting; facilitating online relationships with other users; replacing negative offline relationships; a form of “therapy” to escape problems; and, a manifestation of “addictive” aspects of the Internet. Merdian, Curtis, Thakker, Wilson, and Boer (2013) suggest offending can be pedophilic, part of a general deviance, financial, or for other reasons (e.g., curiosity). In a paper based on 25 interviews, Steely, Bensel, Bratton, and Lytle (2018) differentiate by temporality: motivations at onset of offending included curiosity, exposure by accident, attraction to childhood innocence/inexperience, and thrill in risk taking, while most common for continued offending were attraction to innocence/inexperience and thrill in risk taking.

Some researchers point to more social explanations, and suggest that CSEM offending may be a form of improper behavior used to reduce stress or manage depression, loneliness, anger, anxiety, lack of control, poor intimacy skills, and/or problems with relationships (Laulik, Allam, & Sheridan, 2007; Marshall, O’Brien, Marshall, Booth, & Davis, 2012; Middleton, Elliott, Mandeville-Norden, & Beech, 2006; Quayle, Vaughan, & Taylor, 2006). There is also a broader debate about empathy and sexual offending (Barnett & Mann, 2013), which is examined in the Discussion. Still others focus on sexual preference: in comparing offense history and phallometric tests of CSEM users, people who offended against children, individuals who offended against adults, and general sexology patients, Seto, Cantor, and Blanchard (2006) concluded that CSEM offenses were the strongest indicator of pedophilia.

Another common research avenue is comparison of those who have committed Internet versus contact crimes. Studies conclude that CSEM users are: less likely to be antisocial, but more likely to be sexually deviant (Babchishin, Hanson, & Hermann, 2011; Babchishin, Hanson, & VanZuylen, 2015; Henshaw, Ogloff, & Clough, 2018); are more lonely, but less likely to emotionally identify with children (Bates & Metcalf, 2007); have higher victim empathy, lower pro-offending attitudes, and lower impulsivity (Elliott, Beech, & Mandeville-Norden, 2013); report higher levels of psychological problems (Webb, Craissati, & Keen, 2007); or conversely, are not likely to have backgrounds involving mental illness, substance abuse, or violence (Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell, 2005; Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell, 2011). Finally, there has been theorization of “Implicit Theories” (ITs) held by CSEM users. These are “interlocking core beliefs” hypothesized to underlie offense-supportive thoughts (Bartels & Merdian, 2016, p. 17). Bartels and Merdian (2016) suggest five ITs that they compare with contact offenses, the most pertinent of which is “children as sex objects” and is explored further in the Discussion.

An element that receives scant attention is users’ perceptions and constructions of children and childhood both in CSEM and the offline world, along with how these factor into offending. Most relevant are studies that report on beliefs about images. In a case study, Quayle, Holland, Linehan, and Taylor (2000) noted how their participant dissociated from children in CSEM through file manipulation, describing “a sense of it just being electronic” (p. 90). In interviews, Quayle and Taylor (2002) also described emotional distancing through equating children with electronic images. Using an online survey with 68 respondents, Merdian et al. (2018) similarly found that CSEM offending facilitated “distal social and sexual engagement” (p. 247). Others have reported how CSEM users use terms such as “only an image” (Leonard, 2010, p. 255) and “only pictures” (Winder & Gough, 2010, p. 130) to create distance from the reality that children are abused, which are akin to what Burke, Sowerbutts, Blundell, and Sherry (2002) label “restricted view of harm” distortions (p. 81).

Also relevant is CSEM users’ identification with fictional characters. In comparing psychological measures of 505 Internet and 526 contact offending participants, Elliott, Beech, Mandeville-Norden, and Hayes (2009) found that the Internet group identified with fictional characters at a significantly higher level. This was echoed by Elliott et al. (2013). In research with 16 professionals, Kettleborough and Merdian (2017) similarly found that experts believed CSEM users see children as unreal fantasy characters; however, their study was undertaken with professionals, and not with CSEM users themselves.

While the literature reporting on CSEM users’ beliefs about images and identification with fictional characters provides a useful starting point, its focus is on pictures as objects as opposed to the children in these objects. Results indicate users’ perceptions of images as electronic, distant, and a reduced form of harm; however, there is little about perceptions of children in images, what they are, and who they are. Similarly, while Elliott et al. demonstrate that CSEM users identify with fictional characters, little is known about how such fictional characters may be constructed. Finally, while the above studies include information about children in CSEM, they do not compare CSEM users’ perceptions of children in online and offline worlds, and how Internet usage impacts such understandings.

Furthermore, existing research often utilizes case history and crime data as a main source (e.g., Endrass et al., 2009; Owens, Eakin, Hoffer, Muirhead, & Shelton, 2016; Seto, Hanson, & Babchishin, 2011; Wolak et al., 2005, 2011), and/or stems from samples in post-sentence mandatory settings (e.g., Bourke & Hernandez, 2009; Middleton, Mandeville-Norden, & Hayes, 2009). Less is known about individuals before their court cases, or those who may never be convicted. This is an important gap to fill, as working with people earlier can provide new insights from those who are closer to the time of offending and may be less influenced by judicial processes. As existing methodology is often rooted in surveys and questionnaires, official records, experiments, and clinical interviews, much of the literature reports on rates of reoffending, rates of crossover online and offline, user characteristics, and psychological assessments; at present, there is a dearth of in-depth qualitative work.

This article addresses the above gaps in topic and method by analyzing CSEM users’ constructions. It answers one central research question: how do participants’ constructions, perceptions, and actions compare to dominant cultural understandings of childhood and sexuality? It is the second paper from a large project, the first being an article about CSEM users’ perceptions of online spaces that published a separate sub-set of the data and explored other offending factors (Rimer, 2017). By conducting long-term research in a pre-trial setting, utilizing anthropology, and presenting rich qualitative data, this study adds a new dimension to the literature on CSEM usage and users. In diverging from dominant modes of investigation, it builds upon and departs from the sparse literature that engages with notions of children in CSEM. This helps expand our understanding of why and how people offend.

The application of anthropology to online sexual offending research is new; in their review, Schneider and Schneider (2008) note that when researching perpetrators of crime, anthropologists have focused on bandits, traffickers, drug dealers, street gangs, gangsters, and mafias. Regarding ethnographic studies with people who have committed sexual offenses, one anthropologist (Waldram, 2012) and one sociologist (Lacombe, 2008) have undertaken long-term fieldwork in correctional settings; however, in contrast to the present study, their work is not focused on CSEM, and their analyses center on therapeutic processes and power.

While anthropological study of sexual offending is limited, the discipline provides a unique untapped analytical lens. The framework for this article derives from the anthropology and sociology of childhood. At the core, such a perspective sees childhood as culturally and socially constructed (LeVine, 2007; Prout & James, 1997), and therefore not a universal and unchangeable concept, but rather a heterogeneous one that differs across historical, geographical, and cultural contexts (Montgomery, 2003). While there are biological realities regarding children’s immaturity and development (Gittins, 2004), scholars point out that the life phase is construed and institutionalized in varying ways; it is the product of changing social, historical, and political processes and norms (James & James, 2001).

Using the above premise, scholars analyze current Euro-American norms of childhood, which center on interlinking notions of learning, protection, irrationality, inexperience, asexuality, and most of all, innocence. They note that assumptions about childhood as a life phase place it as part of a universal growth process, where change from irrationality to rationality is the mark of adulthood (Prout & James, 1997). Accompanied are generally accepted notions: first, children are innocent, asexual, and meant to be protected (Ennew, 1986; Kehily & Montgomery, 2004); second, they are not born competent or rational, so it is the duty of adults to socialize children within a safe environment (Boyden, 2001; Prout & James, 1997). Children are “useless but also priceless” (Lancy, 2008, p. 13), and childhood is a wholesome time for enjoyment before the woes of adult life (Rogers, 2003).

Regarding criminal contravention of norms, these ideas about limited competence and rationality are said to be primary reasons why children are vulnerable and need protection (Jewkes & Wykes, 2012; Scott, Jackson, & Backett-Milburn, 1998). Norms are based on “the sexually innocent child” (Ennew, 1986, p. 20), existing in a family of protected children and protecting adults. Adults are tasked with alleviating harms that destroy innocence, with sexuality being key (Scott et al., 1998). Innocence is the main aspect of childhood that sexual abuse is said to destroy (Kehily & Montgomery, 2003; Montgomery, 2009), and abusers have therefore “dishonoured the cultural conception of childhood” (Gooren, 2011, p. 31).

While identifying norms of childhood, the anthropological position also challenges their apparent universality by pointing to extensive cultural, historical, and geographical variation. There is vast heterogeneity in conduct toward, and beliefs about, children (Korbin, 1977). For example, differing to the norm that children are naturally good and in need of constant praise, Tongan children are said to be ignorant, unreasonable, and socially incompetent (lacking poto). They are perceived to be mischievous, and their social incompetence is openly berated to teach poto (Montgomery, 2009). Norms of innocence and sexuality also differ, ranging from harsh restrictions to open behavior that Euro-American society would consider inappropriate, with all societies delineating some form of sexual activity that transgresses local norms and requires punishment (Grubin, 1992; Korbin, 1977, 1987). For example, the Kwoma of New Guinea strongly prohibit children touching their own genitals such that a woman may beat a boy’s penis with a stick if he is caught (Korbin, 1987). Conversely, the Canela of Brazil encourage young people to have sexual experiences with multiple partners of similar age before and after marriage, which is connected to a belief about semen being necessary for child development in the womb (Montgomery, 2009).

This heterogeneity is not restricted to far-away distant places: within Euro-America, there are differences, uncertainties, and contradictions in both laws and popular culture, all of which suggests difficulty in identifying a single universal threshold to demarcate childhood from adulthood. For example, ages of consent vary across Europe (Wortley & Smallbone, 2012). In the UK, while a person cannot drink alcohol until 18, they can consent to sexual activity at 16 (Gillespie, 2010), and can be held criminally responsible at 10 in England and Wales (GOV.UK, 2018). While childhood innocence is valued in society, it is also simultaneously sexualized in areas including fashion, child beauty pageants, and pop music (Gooren, 2011; Jewkes & Wykes, 2012; Kehily & Montgomery, 2003; Scott et al., 1998).

The purpose of including these details and examples is not to judge Euro-American or other cultural notions of childhood; rather, the point is to reinforce that conceptually, there is a lack of universal standards about childhood (Montgomery, 2001), and thus it is constructed. This premise then acts as a foundation for the article: if childhood can change in space, place, and time, then does it change for participants? If so, how and across what contexts?