Stop the books about child abuse

Wander around a bookshop and it won't be difficult to find masses and masses of books about child abuse. Amazon even has a specific section dedicated to books about child abuse! I think "A child called it" was an early pioneer of this genre, with its black and white photo of a sad-looking child and its provocative title, it became a bestseller. Since then, hundreds of child abuse books have followed. Many follow the example of pale backgrounds, washed-out photos of sad-looking children, and provocative or disturbing titles like "A special place" "Stop, Daddy, stop" and "Our little secret". These books are obviously flying off the shelves, because each year, yet more books about child abuse pop up, ready to be consumed by people who enjoy reading about child abuse.

Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?

Child pornography is illegal. You wouldn't find it on the shelves at eye level in Asda, nor would there be a whole section dedicated to it in Waterstones - and rightly so. People who abuse children are the scum of the earth, and people who want to look at images or videos of child abuse are a pretty close second. So why is it seemingly perfectly acceptable to read about child abuse in graphic detail? People wouldn't buy their grandad a subscription to a child porn website for Christmas, so why do they buy their granny yet another book which describes child sex abuse?

Below I consider and reject several possible reasons for thinking that looking at child pornography and reading about child abuse are morally distinct. Perhaps we should stop short of making these books illegal, but I do think we should stop these books from adorning the shelves in bookshops, and carefully monitor people who buy or read such books.

It's not all sexual

OK so not all books about child abuse are about sexual abuse; most are "merely" about emotional and physical abuse, and neglect. But some books are about sexual abuse, and those are my main targets in this post.

And as an aside, although there might not be a specific law against watching people beat, torture, kill, emotionally abuse or neglect their children, we might (rightly) think that people who enjoy watching these things are doing something morally troubling, if not wholly wrong. Yet we seem to think it's fine for people to read about all these types of abuse: Why? Some possible reasons are discussed below.

Visual / literary medium

Firstly, child porn is visual, whereas child abuse books are literary. Perhaps we differentiate between them because we think it's wrong to look at abuse, but OK to read about abuse? This is probably a distinction that most people do make, but without good reason.

Suppose there was a website where paedophiles share stories about the sexual things they've done to children (sadly, such websites probably do exist). If a person were to spend an evening reading the stories on such a website - but without looking at any pictures - I think we would view this person as morally bereft, and almost as bad (if not just as bad) as someone who looks at child porn. So this makes me think that it's not just about the distinction between the visual / literary medium.

The author

So if it's not the visual/literary distinction, then maybe it's because most child porn is created by the perpetrator, and shown from the position of the perpetrator, whereas child abuse books are told from the point of view of the victim.

Or at least, that's what we're supposed to think. How many readers really check whether the author of a book is the victim? Perhaps some authors of child abuse books are actually perpetrators, retelling the abuse they've committed from the point of view of their victim. Or perhaps the stories are fictional, the author detailing their appalling sexual fantasies in literary form. I imagine that at least some of the child abuse books on sale are as a matter of fact written by paedophiles. Still think it's OK to read these books?

What if it turns out that some child porn photos / videos are shared online by the child themselves? This wouldn't be enormously surprising, given that 'sexting' is a thing among tweens and teens: they share pictures of themselves naked or performing sex acts on snapchat, whatsapp, and other platforms. But surely we wouldn't think that it's OK for someone to view these images of child porn simply because the child (even if they've now grown up) was complicit in the sharing of the images? Someone who shares images of themselves being on the receiving end of child sexual abuse is (as far as the law is concerned) just as guilty as anyone else who shares images of abuse.

So if some books are written by paedophiles, and some child porn is shared by the victims, then the "who is the author" argument doesn't help us to distinguish between the morally acceptable and the morally unacceptable, if we're wanting to show that books are permissible but images are not.

Why people read / watch

So maybe the reason we distinguish between child porn and child abuse books is because of the reasons why people read or look at them. I think the assumption is that people (usually men) who look at child porn photos and videos are doing it for sexual excitement and gratification: they find the images arousing. Whereas the assumption with child abuse books is that the people (usually women) who read them are reading it with sympathy and horror; they come away from the book thinking how terrible the abuse was.

But suppose that someone who reads a lot of child abuse books with sadness and horror decides to start looking at child porn with sadness and horror too. Suppose they go online and seek out horrible videos of child abuse and rape, and they sit there watching them feeling sad and disgusted with what they're seeing. I think we'd see such behaviour as decidedly odd, if not wrong and  criminal. We'd say "you shouldn't look at child porn, even if you're looking at it in sympathy".

And suppose a paedophile enjoys reading the child abuse books for sexual gratification. Suppose he sees the books as a way of indulging his sexual fantasies in a legal way. Suppose the rape and abuse scenes in the child abuse books are so arousing for him that he masturbates while reading them. I bet some people do do this. I think we would see this as morally troubling that someone would find these books arousing. I don't think we'd just shrug and say well it's fine because it's only a piece of literature, and buy him another child abuse book for Christmas.

This is probably the most convincing of the arguments, but given that we don't know the real reasons why someone looks at or reads about child abuse, it will be tricky for us to distinguish between those who are looking at or reading about child abuse with sympathy, and those who find it exciting. So we revert back to saying pictures-and-videos - bad, books - good.

No legal restriction on books

Perhaps the only reason why we feel that looking at photos of child abuse is wrong (but books about child abuse are fine) is simply because the former is illegal and the latter is not.  Those who look at child abuse pictures do so in secret, in their own homes, through untraceable proxies. They keep it secret from family and friends, and if they are caught with all that child porn, they'll be prosecuted. It's not socially acceptable to sit on a train watching videos of child porn. Whereas reading child abuse books is legal; people who read them don't need to do so in secret, and if the police discover that someone owns a lot of child abuse books, nothing happens. It's (seemingly) socially acceptable to sit on a train reading a book about child abuse.

But laws are fairly arbitrary, and change over time and borders. In some countries, (Japan, perhaps?) there are no laws against child abuse (in countries where child marriage is practiced, it is acceptable for a man to have sex with a little girl so long as he is married to her). And there are probably some countries where child abuse books are illegal. If UK laws had been the other way around, and it was illegal to read child abuse books, but legal to view child porn, then would public opinion switch too? I think it probably would. If people secretly went online to read child abuse stories, but child porn magazines adorned the shelves of Sainsbury's, would our opinions switch too? I think they would, and if I'm right, then we are fickle and uncommitted to our beliefs, proving that there is not much of a distinction between child porn and child abuse books; it's just legal precedent and social convention.

All together now

A final possibility is that some or all of the above reasons group together to distinguish child porn from child abuse books. Child porn is visual, illegal, usually created by abusers, and the viewers are (mostly) men who are watching it for sexual gratification. Child abuse books are literary, legal, usually created by victims, and the readers are (mostly) women who are reading it with sympathy.

When put like that, the argument seems more convincing... but if as I've shown above, each of the constituent parts of the argument are unconvincing, then merely adding several unconvincing arguments together doesn't really make it convincing. Five wrongs don't make a right.

Conclusion

It doesn't look like the law or public opinion on this pseudo-distinction between child porn and child abuse books is going to change any time soon. It looks as though, for the foreseeable future, looking at child porn will (rightly) be seen as abhorrent and immoral, but reading about child abuse will (wrongly) be seen as a perfectly legitimate pastime.

Am I the only one who finds this distinction weird? I don't know. But whenever I meet someone who enjoys reading books describing child abuse, I can't help but feel disturbed, and I wonder why they are reading these books. If you ask me, books which describe child abuse in graphic detail should not be adorning the shelves of supermarkets and bookshops, available for anyone of any age to buy, read, and enjoy. I suggest that the readers of child abuse books should be viewed with suspicion, and perhaps even scrutinised by the police.