[Stillness]

It seems pretty harsh to accuse someone of being guilty of playing a role in victimizing children just because they married someone who did, when they had no clue of it beforehand. People have been painting, sculpting, and photographing nude people for thousands of years. That's very different from child pornography.

I don't think just looking at employment is helpful, but I don't think she's necessarily barking up the wrong tree trying to get a profile of people who hurt children. I also think she's been through a painful divorce and her husband may have victimized her children. She's come here looking for answers and support. Maybe cut her a break?

[DreamP346]

I think the OP is speculating whether pedophiles are more likely to take jobs that would give them better access to child pornography. The ASSUMPTION is that pedophiles are more like to be computer people. That is very different than saying computer people are more likely to be pedophiles.

Personally I have not seen any research to back up this assumption. It may or may not be true. You would have to do a lot of good research to validate this claim.

OP, as you can see, this is a very touchy subject. If you do decide to write an article on it, make sure you aren't just making speculations but back-up your theories based on sound research.

[Claret]

"It seems pretty harsh to accuse someone of being guilty of playing a role in victimizing children just because they married someone who did, when they had no clue of it beforehand. People have been painting, sculpting, and photographing nude people for thousands of years. That's very different from child pornography."

If this is based upon what I wrote, please re-read what I wrote. It was meant to merely debase the hypothosis that the poster making and that prior to presenting any papers she would have to have FACTS.

[caster]

Pull up nudist web sites, you'll find pictures of naked families and children. Taken in context they are normal pictures, click save as and put a couple on your computer, seperate the adult pics from the childrens pics and what do you see? Nothing but naked Children.
Has the downloader gone from voyeur to pediphile?

Out of context changes perception.

[BabyGirl]

I've been thinking about writing an article on this to warn other women, giving them signs to look for if they think that their own husband/partner is looking at naked children or child porn.

I really don't know how this Subject turned to Pedophile or Abuse or Molestation of Children. I've read her post a dozen times and nowhere does she mention it as anything other than Child Porn.

I believe the OP is trying to try and find a way to give a List of things to look for if you think Hubby or Wife or SO. may be doing this .

The police were called and they searched the drives for child pornography. At least in the state of Minnesota, photos of naked children are only considered child porn if the children are actually involved in sexual activities with other children or with adults.

Which shows that if you take a pic of your child running around naked or as someone said live in a Nudist Colony, it is not Done for Pornography , it is something that is natural .

I'm sorry, but I believe that anyone having naked photos of anyone's children is wrong. Sick and wrong.

This is her Opinion and allot of others, but Not all people ( Obviously ) or this would not be such a sensitive Issue and there would not be so many Naked Children plastered over the internet for any Sex Predator or Pedophile to Download.

And she states a Theory about Working with Computers

My aunt sent me an article about men downloading child porn, from 2008. In the article, one of the guys who downloaded porn built computers for a living. My husband works at a computer place, builds computers too, and is a photographer.

So I'm starting to theorize that maybe these guys who download these images take computer jobs for a living, so that they have easier access, and have an excuse of why they hide behind a computer for all hours of the day.

Here I can see the Misunderstanding, thinking " Stereotyping " of guys on Computers that work on them all day .

So my question is, for those of you who have a husband/partner who downloads either naked photos of children or actual child porn, what does your husband do for a living?

Here it seems, that she, Is Doing Research trying to find out what occupations the people have that Do or have downloaded Child Porn. So she can list a percentage of How many actually work on/ with Computers ?
There may well be, more Gym Teachers or Coaches or Pastors that have more Tenancy to Admire or use Naked Children Photo's for enjoyment.
Take our Very Own , Washington State Female Pedophile and Rapist,Mary Kay Letourneau, You can Google her if you haven't heard of her . She was Sexually active with a 13 year old student, jailed for 7 years and is now married to him. 10 years next year .They have 2 daughters now.
Her Abuse did not start as looking at Child Porn, that we know of

So the OP's Child Porn Pictures Theory , show " Not all Teachers, Male or Female are Pedophiles ". And Not all Rape. Molestation, pedophiles are on or have Computers.
I believe the OP is " Digging Deep " into the reasons and how it comes to be and what to look for.

I also believe that without Internet Child Porn, it would be much more difficult for someone to get caught with Child Porn.That would make Black Market Child Porn magazines and taking their own photo's more Risky than just downloading them . And it would take a " reason " to search their Computer or home for Child Porn.

[Stillness]

The ASSUMPTION is that pedophiles are more like to be computer people. That is very different than saying computer people are more likely to be pedophiles.

I don't see the difference. Unless my logic is bad, if a substantially large percentage of possessors of child pornography are computer people, then it follows that if you search among computer people then you'll be more likely to find them than in the general population.

If that were true, then the danger would be looking at computer people with suspicion simply because of their work. That'd be like looking at "white men" with suspicion because 91% of people caught with child pornography fit that demographic. That's unreasonable. It's not wrong to just ask questions, which is all she did. It would be better to develop a comprehensive profile. It would take interesting facts and turn them into actionable information. And that may be what she's at the initial stages of doing, as BabyGirl mentioned.

[rcoreyus]

Collecting adult porn is legal, and in many people's minds socially acceptable. Taking nudest pictures of adults and children is (in some areas) legal and in many people's minds socially acceptable. Where it gets tricky is that if someone does both the obvious question arises of whether they are taking the nudest pictures of children out of sexual interest, or if their liking of nudes is completely separate from their sexual interests.

One hint is the type of nude pictures - are they in any way sexual?

I like seeing erotic pictures of women. I like pictures of kittens. This does not mean that I have a sexual interest in kittens.

[DreamP346]

I don't see the difference. Unless my logic is bad, if a substantially large percentage of possessors of child pornography are computer people, then it follows that if you search among computer people then you'll be more likely to find them than in the general population.

Its the same logic as "all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs." Looking at statistics, its appears that most pedophiles are men. Then you can make an assumption a pedophile is most likely to be a male. That is very different than making the assumption that a male is most likely to be a pedophile. Does that make sense?

[Stillness]

Its the same logic as "all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs." Looking at statistics, its appears that most pedophiles are men. Then you can make an assumption a pedophile is most likely to be a male. That is very different than making the assumption that a male is most likely to be a pedophile. Does that make sense?

Yes, I think so. It's probably just wording. The modifier "all" changes things too. If the stats are to be accepted, a man is more likely to be a pedophile than a woman, but just because someone's a man doesn't mean he's most likely a pedophile. I think we agree.

My concern at this point is that season1980 came here looking for support and she'll come back and find pages of debates, over a simple, valid question that has yet to be directly answered. Personally, I hope this thing gets on track because I'd like her to have answers and am curious myself whether some people mask their sexual interest in children behind jobs or hobbies. A lot of people who are into this kind of pornography actually victimize children. I think there is "common knowledge" that predators position themselves in careers or volunteer work that gives them access to children - coach, priest, tutor, etc. How true or common is that, really? Maybe it's not just computers or it's not computers at all, but maybe there are other things that people like this do.

I think it could be an informative discussion.

[season1980]

adding to my post

My goodness! A big thank you to those who read my posting with an open, clear mind instead of a narrow one with lots of their own preconceived notions or baggage. All I was trying to do was three things - First, I had a theory since it's come up a few times in my research (and I'm including my own experience here) to see if there was a pattern. Of course, not all men who work with computers are pedophiles! I never said that they were. It's sad that there are people who read what they want to read, instead of just focusing on what is really being written/said. I didn't think my post was going to cause all of this.

But since downloading photos of naked children or child porn is a computer thing, then anyone with access to a computer can do whatever they please. Most work places automatically ban adult and inappropriate websites, so this stuff wouldn't be done at work. What I was trying to get at, would a husband (or wife, for those males out there), use their job as an excuse to always be at the computer at home to download and view this stuff as mine did? Since computers were his job, I was never suspicious...although there were times he would make a quick movement to change the screen or something when I did check on him. (Looking back now, I do find that odd). So I was wondering if anyone else experienced the same. Thus, I was wondering if those who experienced the same - had husbands who did this - did their husbands have a similar job and gave a similar excuse.

So far I've learned that most of the people who download child porn are priests, doctors, police, clergy, teachers, coaches. I think that there were a couple of others listed, but I don't have that article handy at the moment. Police and doctors surprised me, but I'm not going to think any less of them, as I'm sure it's just a small percentage.

Second, research. It kinda goes along with my theory. I also wanted to learn if someone who looks back on her (or his) experience with her husband (or wife) saw signs of him (or her, you know, I'm just going to going he, otherwise this is just going to get messy. He is the "neutral" pronoun in the English language anyway) acting odd when downloading this stuff. I've started writing down the signs that I saw, because this goes into my first reason, to warn others. I felt so dumb from not noticing this stuff earlier, especially when my friends keep asking me why I didn't notice sooner. I'd like to prevent others from this embarrassment. Or if the husband was caught, she could get out so she wouldn't get caught up in it if the images were indeed child porn.

I've read elsewhere that guys who look at lots (read, obsessive amounts) of porn build sort of a tolerance and need something more daring/bizarre for their next fix. Once they do all that, then they start on children.

Oh, Stillness has a good point, which I just saw. Although I think the world is way too PC, for the article, I'll try to be more neutral, including both genders.

Anyway, thank you again for those who are supportive. I appreciate it.