My response will not be vastly different from that of my colleague Vernon Quinsey. Indeed, I am equally uncomfortable with the idea of having the possession of pornographic material included as a sexual offence. In that regard, it seems to me that there is a big difference between possession and creation of this material. Obviously, the argument is always that individuals interested in this type of material, who own some and download it, are encouraging producers and in so doing are essentially part of a production line of child pornography. At the very least it is said they are accomplices in the exploitation of children for sexual purposes. I know this argument, and it is true. However, there is such a high prevalence of possession of child pornography that I wonder, honestly, whether it is realistic to include that among the offences.
Further, research has shown that only a small proportion of individuals possessing pornographic materials act out. That is another point I wanted to raise. With respect to pedophilia, as I believe Dr. Quinsey just explained, in other words and perhaps better than I, as I have already said, it is a sexual orientation. Of course, even an individual whose sexual orientation involves a quasi-exclusive preference for prepuberscent children can remain chaste or abstinent. In fact, this has been seen among some members of the Catholic clergy. Chastity exists, but for the vast majority of pedophiles, the risk of acting out is far higher than for other sexual offenders. And in this case I would refer to intrafamilial abusers as an example, as my colleague has done.