Online Sexual Offending: Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM)

What is CSEM?

  • CSEM stands for Child Sexual Exploitation Material.
  • The term "child pornography" is avoided because "pornography" typically refers to consensual acts involving adults.
  • Using "pornography" in the context of children can normalize or minimize the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.
  • Children cannot give consent; pornography implies consent.
  • In New Zealand, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 addresses CSEM.
  • It is an offense to possess or trade in "objectionable publications".
  • Objectionable content includes depictions of sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence that are likely to be injurious to the public good.
  • Sexual publications involving images of nude or partially nude children or young persons are considered CSEM if the images are sexual in nature.
  • Publications are deemed objectionable when they promote or support the exploitation of children for sexual purposes.

How Common is CSEM Use?

  • Data comes from various sources, including the Missing Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (US-based).
  • Reports are sent to government agencies worldwide.
  • Social media platforms (Meta, X, Facebook) have varying policies regarding sharing information, which can lead to underestimation due to inconsistent regulation.
  • Approximately 35 million referrals indicate widespread global problem.
  • Repeat referrals can occur.
  • The Department of Internal Affairs administers the Video and Classification Act.
  • The police classify material as objectionable.
  • Internal Affairs initially receives referrals and investigates NZ IP addresses; if children are identified, the case is passed to the police.
  • A literature review of websites on the dark web found that 2% (approximately 900) contained CSEM, and about 16% (approximately 7,000) were related to drugs.
  • These websites accounted for 80% of browsing requests.
  • Dombert et al. (2016) conducted an online survey of 8,438 community-based German men.
    • 1.7% of men reported CSEM use.
    • 0.8% reported contact sexual offenses against children.
    • 0.7% reported both CSEM use and contact sexual offences against children.

Does CSEM Use Lead to Contact Sexual Offending?

  • The potential for escalation and harm exists because a market implies demand.
  • Seto et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis.
    • 12% of CSEM offenders had a contact sexual offense in their conviction history.
    • 55% self-reported a prior contact sexual offense.
    • The sample predominantly consisted of correctional/treatment subjects.
  • Dombert et al. (2016) found that 29% of people with CSEM offending reported contact sexual offending.

Recidivism Rates Among CSEM Users

  • Seto et al. (2011) meta-analysis:
    • Average recidivism rate for contact sexual offenses = 1%.
    • Average recidivism rate for CSEM offenses = 3%.
  • Differences in contact offending between mixed (CSEM and contact) and CSEM-exclusive groups exist.
  • Eke et al. (2017): 7.5% (mixed) vs. 2.2% (CSEM-exclusive).
  • Graf & Dittmann (2011): 6.0% (mixed) vs. 0.2% (CSEM-exclusive).

Babchishin et al. (2022)

  • Study of 85 men convicted of a sexual offense, categorized into:
    • Escalation group: CSEM ➔ Contact (n = 10).
    • Stable group: CSEM ➔ CSEM (n = 40).
    • De-escalation group: Contact ➔ CSEM (n = 35).
  • Five years after the second offense:
    • The escalation group (CSEM to contact) had higher rates of any type of offending.
    • No significant difference in overall sexual offending rates.
    • The escalation group was 2x more likely to have recidivism for contact sexual offending.
    • The other two groups were more likely to have CSEM recidivism.
    • The de-escalation group was also likely to engage in CSEM.
    • Findings suggest possible research directions regarding how offenses progress but are somewhat unreliable.
  • Differences between groups:
    • Stable group: Higher sexual interest in children.
    • De-escalation group: Younger age at first involvement with police, suggesting antisocial tendencies.
    • Escalation group: More substance use problems, potentially explaining higher scores for violent and other crimes.
  • Men with CSEM offenses who escalated to contact sexual offenses had a higher risk of reoffending than those with stable or de-escalation patterns.
  • However, CSEM offending is not a gateway to contact sexual offending for most men with CSEM offenses.

What About People with Only CSEM Use?

  • Factors expected to be associated with a higher risk of progressing to contact offending:
    • High levels of pedophilia.
    • High sexual preoccupation.
    • Access to children.
    • Attitudes tolerant of sexual offending against children.
    • Interest in other kinds of sexual content.
  • Limited research has established these associations (Babchishin et al., 2018).
  • Conclusion: Research suggests that for the vast majority of CSEM-exclusive offenders, CSEM is not a gateway to contact sexual offenses against children, but some CSEM offenders do commit new CSEM offenses (Babchishin et al., 2018).

Why Do People Use CSEM?

  • Wortley et al. (2024) examined 75 men voluntarily participating in a treatment program.
    • They were willing to be forthright.
  • How CSAM was first encountered:
    • Curious after viewing adult legal pornography: 30 (40%).
    • Curious after viewing barely legal pornography: 12 (16%).
    • Accidentally encountered on another site: 2 (3%).
    • Followed a pop-up link: 8 (11%).
    • Sought it out from the start: 43 (57%).
    • Received images sent by acquaintance: 6 (8%).
  • How interest in CSAM developed:
    • I became more sexually interested in children: 41 (55%).
    • I do not/have never had a sexual interest in children: 4 (5%).
    • I was sexually interested in children from the start: 21 (28%).
    • I became less sexually interested in children: 2 (3%).
  • How it changes over time:
    • The most common pattern fluctuates with no clear escalation, except for the collection of images, which may fluctuate or increase.
    • Individuals may experience emotions like shame and attempt to abstain before re-engaging.
  • Self-reported reasons for using CSEM:
    • As a substitute for contact offending (Quayle & Taylor, 2002; Seto et al., 2010).
    • Curiosity (Seto et al., 2010).
    • To facilitate social relationships (Quayle & Taylor, 2002).
    • To collect material (Quayle & Taylor, 2002; Surjadi et al., 2010).
    • For financial gain (Lanning, 2001).
    • To “avoid real life” (Surjadi et al., 2010).

CSEM vs. Contact Offending

  • Babchishin et al. (2015) explored why individuals engage only in CSEM, real-life offenses, or both.
  • Dimensions examined:
    • CSEM: Access to the internet (more access).
    • Real life: More access to children.
    • Direction of causality: Did they have access to children and sought them out, or did CSEM remove them from real-life contact with children?
    • Those who sexually offend against children have lower interest in children vs. higher interest in those who engage in CSEM.
    • Highest interest is among those who engage in both.

Is CSEM Offending Unique?

  • CSEM-exclusive offenders tend to be lower on indicators of antisocial tendencies and access to children compared to mixed offenders and SOC (Sex Offenders against Children) (Babchishin et al., 2018).

Routine Activities Theory and CSEM

  • Three characteristics for crime to occur:
    • Motivated offender.
    • Available victim.
    • Lack of supervision.
  • Due to the unregulated nature of the internet, CSEM offenses often meet two of these criteria, requiring only the motivation for the crime to occur.

CSEM-Specific Implicit Theories (Bartels & Merdian, 2016)

  • Implicit theories are ways people see the world, influencing thinking patterns during offending.
    • Unhappy world.
    • Children as sexual objects.
    • Nature of harm (CSEM variant).
    • Self as uncontrollable.
    • Self as collector.
  • These theories are specific to CSEM but overlap with general sexual offending.

The Role of Sexual Arousal

  • Sexual arousal may facilitate and exacerbate CSEM use.
  • Why do people progress from legal pornography to CSEM?
    • Less control of urges?
    • Greater willingness to search for deviant content?
    • Temporary discounting of consequences?
  • However, a substantial proportion of CSEM users report no sexual interest in children (Merdian et al., 2018; Seto et al., 2006; Wortley et al., 2024).

Summary of Theories of CSEM Offending

  • Some key risk factors have been identified.
  • Insights largely come from self-report or adjudicated samples.
  • Reliance on risk factors and theories from other types of sexual offending.
  • Unclear how well they apply to CSEM.
  • Lacking comprehensive theories of CSEM offending.

CSEM Research at VUW

  • Working with DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) and the Digital Safety team to examine pathways of CSEM use.
  • Key research question: How does CSEM use change over time?
  • Possible future research avenues:
    • To what extent does CSEM use overlap with other objectionable content use (e.g., violent extremism)?
    • Desensitization?

Take-Home Messages

  • Use of CSEM is widespread and growing.
  • CSEM is inherently harmful; it does not need to progress to contact offending to cause harm.
  • Most people who use CSEM do not go on to engage in contact sexual offending.
  • This area is developing rapidly.
  • Research is needed to inform theory and prevention/intervention.