I was not content in limiting my inquiry to my own somewhat adult perspective, so I asked my 13 year old niece and her mother what they thought. I explained the software to my niece in the same way I introduced it in this paper, and then asked her for her opinion. She said that she was fully against the use of the software, adamantly so. I felt her opinion was important, at least as important as mine. It s not the studies that might support a causal link between child pornography and child molestation.
Studies are inconclusive, and the argument currently goes nowhere.
A more probable argument is that perhaps the pornography socializes the viewer to think it s ok. Based on the lack of support from studies, and in the test case, the absolute lack of contact between the pedophile and the child with the intermediary software, I conclude that the banning of the use of such software is for the protection of the pedophile. I found this to be a curious result, because of course the usual rallying cry against anything involving children or the idea of children is their protection. Protecting the pedophile may be a good argument for the prohibition of the software and its probable spreading effects, but an acknowledgment of that should be the first step in addressing this issue.