“Pedologic”: Examining cognitive distortions in members of a Child Sexual Abuse Material Forum

“The law tries to group all of us into the same category. But we know, in our pedo community, that we are all different.”?

The above quote elucidates an interesting phenomenon within the online Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) community. Despite CSAM offenders generally expressing a sexual desire towards children, there exists a wide disparity between individual preferences as well as rationalisations as to what is considered “acceptable” CSAM material.?

This disparity is typified by the removal of?Suspect A?from?Forum X.?Suspect A?was introduced to us in last week’s article as a producer of a severe type of CSAM material, referred to in the CSAM community as “Hurtcore”.?Forum X, while a forum for posting CSAM material, does not allow the publication of “Hurtcore” material.?Suspect A’s violation of this ban led to his removal from the forum. This sparked a controversy amongst members of the forum, who expressed a range of views as to whether?Suspect A’s material should or should not have been removed.?

The debate that ensued is interesting to CSAM researchers such as ourselves, as it helps us better understand the cognitive distortions that CSAM offenders maintain in order to justify their viewing of CSAM material. For context, cognitive distortions in the case of sexual offences refer to attitudes that violate commonly accepted norms of rationality that allow for the onset or maintenance of sexual offending. The following article examines common cognitive distortions that appear in those members of Forum X arguing against the removal of Suspect A.?

1.?????Minimisation

One of the rarer arguments employed by supporters of?Suspect A?is that his production of CSAM material does not harm children. One member argues “I don’t agree with people saying Suspect A is Hurtcore […] the boy doesn’t scream or cry, he just whines and kicks a little bit”. Another member argues “it doesn’t hurt him… he is used to it”. A third user chimes in by stating that?Suspect A’s?victim has?“never shown signs of harm, no bruising beyond the normal amount for a gay man”.

Others argue that while there is some pain involved for the child, this is minimal and does not harm the child in the long term. One states that “A little voluntary temporary pain is quickly forgotten and won’t cause long term mental harm”, while another goes so far as to suggest that?“it feels good after they get used to it”.?By minimising the alleged harm caused to the children in “Hurtcore” CSAM, we can see how members are able to rationalise their viewership of the material.?

2. Normalisation

Another argument presented by those against the banning of?Suspect A is that producing the material is comparable to ordinary events, thus in their eyes making it more acceptable.?

One member draws a comparison of Suspect A’s victim’s unwillingness to have sex with the producer and him not wanting to?“do homework or eat vegetables”, therefore invalidating his protest. This is an argument readily propagated by?Suspect A?himself, who suggests that while the boy may?“cry and be desperate”, he is equally so when prevented from playing “his favourite video game” or when he is?“scolded by his mother”. Another member pleads with the community on Forum X, asking them?“not be so judgmental”. After all, he argues, people are wired to?“share material with their communities so they can appreciate it”, whether this be?“music videos… or an actual video of themselves having sex with a boy”.?

This appears to be a form of normalisation interacting with minimisation, as parallels are drawn between CSAM and ordinary forms of discomfort or an innocent desire to share material with one’s community. However, it appears that?Suspect A?himself does recognise the harm that he is inflicting on the child he abuses. He chooses to draw a different parallel, comparing his production of CSAM to forms of inevitable harm. He states “I’m not worried about what a child feels any more than I’m worried about men having to work 17 hours a day, or soldiers in war zones, or men who sell drugs for a living”. When comparing it to an inevitable, “normal” event, we see how?Suspect A?is able to rationalise his abuse of children.?

3. Manufacturing Consent

Some members of Forum X argue that Suspect A’s material should not be banned because the child is a willing participant in the abuse. This argument appears to have originated with Suspect A himself, who posts on the forum that?“the child is always kindly invited to play with me”, suggesting that the child has given their consent. Another user follows this by arguing that?“the boy is consenting”, while a third suggests that while the boy may cry, this?“does not mean they’re unwilling”. Some go as far as to suggest that?“we all know that kids are far from being the asexual angels the law is insinuating”.?

Another prevalent cognitive distortion in the CSAM members of this forum is that children have the same mental capacity as an adult. This is illustrated in several ways. One member of Forum X calls the producer and his victim a?“the best couple”. Another draws a comparison between his personal sex life and the abuse of this child: “sometimes I don’t want sex but my partner does so I do it, and I still enjoy the sex in the end […] it’s the same for this boy”.?

Cognitive distortions are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. Indeed, at times, multiple cognitive distortions are shown to be present in the same argument. One post on the forum that adequately encapsulates these overlapping distortions is the following:?“Some physical distress is to be expected even in the case where there is consensual sex… sometimes sex isn’t comfortable for us adults.. it doesn’t always feel good”.?Here we see several cognitive distortions playing out at once. We see the member minimising the physical harm that is caused to the child, we see a comparison to an ordinary sexual interaction and we see the comparison of a child to a consenting adult, whilst denying the importance of their consent.?

In conclusion, members against the ban of Suspect A’s materials on Forum X display a range of cognitive distortions that they may employ in order to rationalise their use of CSAM materials. While of course all literature strongly disagrees with the lack of physical and psychological harm caused to victims of sexual abuse, we can see how, armed with these cognitive distortions, CSAM offenders are able to justify their crimes against children.?

As a final comment, it important to note that while this article has focused on cognitive distortions, there are members of the forum who fervently argue against Suspect A’s banning for reasons other than minimisation, normalisation and the manufacturing of consent. These arguments range from moderator censorship to double standards, to the ban being the fault of “self righteous warriors with their kink shaming bullshit”. As such, it is important to keep in mind that the rationalisation of supporters of Hurtcore is a complex affair, even within this singular dark web forum thread, that cannot be picked apart in a single article. For that reason, next week’s article will continue to examine this same thread from the other side: CSAM members who argue for the banning of Suspect A.?

Author:

Eva Veldhuizen Ochodni?anová, Anti-Human Trafficking Intelligence Initiative, Child Sexual Abuse Material Research and Investigations Unit.

Darkweb Intelligence:

Carolina Christofoletti, Anti-Human Trafficking Intelligence Initiative, Child Sexual Abuse Material Research and Investigations Unit.?