“It was in Control of Me”: Notions of Addiction and Online Child Sexual Exploitation Material Offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on notions of "addiction" among users of online child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) through a comparative analysis of two qualitative studies. The first is a 17-month anthropological ethnography (participant observation, interviews, and focus groups) in UK group programs for CSEM users, and the second is based on interviews with individuals in sexual offense treatment units of a US prison. We thematically analyze the narratives of 103 CSEM users at different timepoints and settings from pre-trial to incarceration. Those citing "addiction" focused on three areas. First was pornography progression. Second were perceived indicators of "addiction" and alignment/analogy to other addictions, including ideas about losing control; ignoring detrimental consequences and continuing; physiological signs similar to withdrawal; likening to substances; and progression from "softer" to "harder" material. Third, less common was rejecting the "addiction" label, citing choice and responsibility. We situate these results within debates and literature regarding pornography and Internet "addiction"; implications of the label; societal conceptions of sexual offending; harms of CSEM; and treatment/prevention considerations. Lastly, highlighting the merit of interdisciplinary comparative qualitative analysis, we demonstrate similarities in narratives despite differences in location, timeframe, setting, conviction status, intervention programming, and research methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".