Absolutely not. Available research suggests there is commonly psychological modelling in relation to consumed pornographic content.
It can maybe be a less harmful outlet for people who have the predisposition in the first place, but it seems by all means you can, especially when young, teach your brain to be aroused by neoteny and the subsequent, more sinister things. Given how terrifying the sparce correlative data between CSA material abuse and actual abusive acts is, this is an unacceptably uneducated statement, validifying the instincts of people who should instead be seeking psychological aid.
As for the ‘this sounds like the video games cause violence argument’… I’m worried how some people fail to understand the logic behind an argument and use it’s result to draw parallels to things they find similar
The reason the ‘video games cause violence’ argument is dumb is because the data predominantly shows they don’t. It would be perfectly valid otherwise, so some argument ‘sounding like it’ is NOT A FUCKING REBUTTAL. The fact that even came to mind for you worries me. Please reformulate the way you form your opinions if you plan to share them in online spaces where they can influence others
sources please, and something relevant, not just about csem in general because they’re pretty obviously different.
validifying the instincts of people who should instead be seeking psychological aid.
What do you think that psychological aid is? Conversion? No. Not every pedophile specializing therapist is even against loli. Lol you guys think this is like medical consensus or something, it’s really not. I’ve heard various therapists give unsure or positive answers. And, reminder, there’s laws based around this conjecture, too, in many places. People can be locked up for reasons in no way based in science, that’s the side you’re on.
Not linking sources to two people not doing the same. I’ve done my research a while ago and I will not waste 30 minutes of my life aggregating links for you.
As I said, I’m aware that research on drawn csam as a ‘therapeutic’ tool doesn’t exist and I’ll gladly defer to a psychologist suggesting it to an existing pedophile as an outlet.
The reason validifying it publicly is dangerous is because:
a) People who use it as an outlet might think they are not still likely a danger to others and morally obligated to seek help if at all possible (it’s fine if a psych suggests it, it’s not a replacement for a psych)
b) People without preexisting harmful instincts, especially young people, can think it harmless to abuse drawn csam and condition their brain into sexual attraction to elements of csam.
That’s bad. Very, very bad.
As far as laws go, you’re aware how little science can feasibly be ethically conducted on csam, right? Given how confident you are in your statement that csam and drawn csam are different in the effects on the person consumimg them (obv one is horribly unethical to produce), where’s that coming from? I know for a fact (if nothing’s changed in the past few years) there’s no study even distinguishing between the two.
I’m always going to err on the side of kids’ safety over people’s ability to watch children get rd,* so given there’s no study comparing the effects of drawn and recorded csam, I’m all for it being illegal until someone proves there’s any reason to be skeptical of it’s harmfulness. The illegality should of course exclude uses suggested by psychologists like trauma processing and use as an outlet.
Not linking sources to two people not doing the same.
You made the claim. The burden on proof is on you to judge the actions of others.
The reason validifying it publicly is dangerous is because: a) People who use it as an outlet might think they are not still likely a danger
Then remind people that they might still be a danger if you think so. You don’t even have to be fully opposed to loli to do this. Some people also legit just aren’t dangers, too.
b) People without preexisting harmful instincts, especially young people, can think it harmless to abuse drawn csam
Where does this reasoning end? Such a slippery slope fallacy. Does someone watching a bloody movie not have the ability to think “well, this is okay because it’s not real” (if you don’t like that analogy please specifically explain what’s wrong with it.) How stupid do you think people are? In no other case so we judge people based on what they might start to believe instead of just educating them.
condition their brain into sexual attraction to elements of csam.
Pedos are capable of using loli without moving on to csam, these people are likely to be even more capable of doing so.
As far as laws go, you’re aware how little science can feasibly be ethically conducted on csam
Plenty of ethical science can be conducted on fictional stuff. Edit: also this sort of thing usually happens in terms of looking at criminal records/studies of people that already offended. Again, you don’t even have this evidence on hand.
I’m always going to err on the side of kids’ safety over people’s ability to watch children get rd,*
When does that reasoning end? What doesn’t have some possibility of harming children? You’re drawing conclusions without reasoning and then calling it an abundance of caution. This doesn’t mean nothing to some people, there are plenty of people who use this stuff as their only safe outlet, meanwhile 0 evidence for it’s harm.
Edit: Even just any source even about porn in general or something would be greatly appreciated. I understand there’s a black hole of science here but you need something beyond assumptions that we can actually talk about.
I’m only aware of one study which is somewhat relevant: there was limited access to porn in Czechoslovakia during the communist era. After the revolution when porn became readily available, the number of reported cases of child sex abuse lowered and rapes stayed about the same, while violent crime in general shot up (as is to be expected when a country stops being a police state, crime goes up).
I used to be firmly in the “no good evidence one way or another” camp like you seem to be for long, this makes me lean towards “drawings could probably help”, though of course more research is needed.
I comment on stuff I take issue with and unfortunately there’s a lot of bad discussion on this topic here. I’m also scripting a youtube video on the topic because it’s underadressed, so I’ve already done some research and it hurts seeing ignorant people talk about it
That’s not an equivalent argument. The equivalent is them drawing them murdering people, and posting it online.
In which case, I agree with you actually. But I think with those people who would draw them murdering others, people drawing minors sexualized should be put on a watchlist and be monitored. I would much rather neither be acceptable, though.
Because ultimately, what stops someone from saying, “well, drawing minors sexualized is okay, so why don’t I just go -censored- a minor?” I think a zero tolerance policy with heinous, criminal actions like pedophilia and murder is the best solution.
You make valid arguments, but your last paragraph (“if loli exists, I can rape kids”) is dangerously close to “violent video games cause school shootings” and I disagree with that very much.
I don’t agree with that at all either. I genuinely don’t believe there are people playing violent videogames to stave off murdering people. I’m not at all advocating to monitor people playing violent video games.
But honestly, both issues are radically different anyway. Time and time again, people trying to talk to minors and establish contact look at loli if they’re not looking at straight up cp. There’s been no murderer that I even know of that just loved Call of Duty.
There can be NO normalization of pedophilia in my opinion.
normalization, no absolutely not but if this person with such interests was just living their life and not raping any kids then I am okay with them “existing” albeit away from me
I disagree. Drawings are a save, harmless way to live out your fantasies.
Absolutely not. Available research suggests there is commonly psychological modelling in relation to consumed pornographic content.
It can maybe be a less harmful outlet for people who have the predisposition in the first place, but it seems by all means you can, especially when young, teach your brain to be aroused by neoteny and the subsequent, more sinister things. Given how terrifying the sparce correlative data between CSA material abuse and actual abusive acts is, this is an unacceptably uneducated statement, validifying the instincts of people who should instead be seeking psychological aid.
As for the ‘this sounds like the video games cause violence argument’… I’m worried how some people fail to understand the logic behind an argument and use it’s result to draw parallels to things they find similar
The reason the ‘video games cause violence’ argument is dumb is because the data predominantly shows they don’t. It would be perfectly valid otherwise, so some argument ‘sounding like it’ is NOT A FUCKING REBUTTAL. The fact that even came to mind for you worries me. Please reformulate the way you form your opinions if you plan to share them in online spaces where they can influence others
sources please, and something relevant, not just about csem in general because they’re pretty obviously different.
What do you think that psychological aid is? Conversion? No. Not every pedophile specializing therapist is even against loli. Lol you guys think this is like medical consensus or something, it’s really not. I’ve heard various therapists give unsure or positive answers. And, reminder, there’s laws based around this conjecture, too, in many places. People can be locked up for reasons in no way based in science, that’s the side you’re on.
Not linking sources to two people not doing the same. I’ve done my research a while ago and I will not waste 30 minutes of my life aggregating links for you.
As I said, I’m aware that research on drawn csam as a ‘therapeutic’ tool doesn’t exist and I’ll gladly defer to a psychologist suggesting it to an existing pedophile as an outlet.
The reason validifying it publicly is dangerous is because: a) People who use it as an outlet might think they are not still likely a danger to others and morally obligated to seek help if at all possible (it’s fine if a psych suggests it, it’s not a replacement for a psych) b) People without preexisting harmful instincts, especially young people, can think it harmless to abuse drawn csam and condition their brain into sexual attraction to elements of csam. That’s bad. Very, very bad.
As far as laws go, you’re aware how little science can feasibly be ethically conducted on csam, right? Given how confident you are in your statement that csam and drawn csam are different in the effects on the person consumimg them (obv one is horribly unethical to produce), where’s that coming from? I know for a fact (if nothing’s changed in the past few years) there’s no study even distinguishing between the two.
I’m always going to err on the side of kids’ safety over people’s ability to watch children get rd,* so given there’s no study comparing the effects of drawn and recorded csam, I’m all for it being illegal until someone proves there’s any reason to be skeptical of it’s harmfulness. The illegality should of course exclude uses suggested by psychologists like trauma processing and use as an outlet.
You made the claim. The burden on proof is on you to judge the actions of others.
Then remind people that they might still be a danger if you think so. You don’t even have to be fully opposed to loli to do this. Some people also legit just aren’t dangers, too.
Where does this reasoning end? Such a slippery slope fallacy. Does someone watching a bloody movie not have the ability to think “well, this is okay because it’s not real” (if you don’t like that analogy please specifically explain what’s wrong with it.) How stupid do you think people are? In no other case so we judge people based on what they might start to believe instead of just educating them.
Pedos are capable of using loli without moving on to csam, these people are likely to be even more capable of doing so.
Plenty of ethical science can be conducted on fictional stuff. Edit: also this sort of thing usually happens in terms of looking at criminal records/studies of people that already offended. Again, you don’t even have this evidence on hand.
When does that reasoning end? What doesn’t have some possibility of harming children? You’re drawing conclusions without reasoning and then calling it an abundance of caution. This doesn’t mean nothing to some people, there are plenty of people who use this stuff as their only safe outlet, meanwhile 0 evidence for it’s harm.
Edit: Even just any source even about porn in general or something would be greatly appreciated. I understand there’s a black hole of science here but you need something beyond assumptions that we can actually talk about.
I’m only aware of one study which is somewhat relevant: there was limited access to porn in Czechoslovakia during the communist era. After the revolution when porn became readily available, the number of reported cases of child sex abuse lowered and rapes stayed about the same, while violent crime in general shot up (as is to be expected when a country stops being a police state, crime goes up).
The study is here:
https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-czech-porn-abstract.html
I used to be firmly in the “no good evidence one way or another” camp like you seem to be for long, this makes me lean towards “drawings could probably help”, though of course more research is needed.
Holding onto this, thanks.
Why is it your account only seems to comment calling people pedos?
It’s all one conversation that got long
I comment on stuff I take issue with and unfortunately there’s a lot of bad discussion on this topic here. I’m also scripting a youtube video on the topic because it’s underadressed, so I’ve already done some research and it hurts seeing ignorant people talk about it
Seems like 6 different threads you’re talking about pedos?
Well we can agree on that at least (:
deleted by creator
I’m sorry, if your fantasies involve children…?
Nobody would make the argument you’re making with rape and murder. Your argument normalizes pedophilia.
I, for one, am completely okay with someone who REALLY LOVES KILLIN’ using violent media as an outlet instead of actually killin’…
That’s not an equivalent argument. The equivalent is them drawing them murdering people, and posting it online.
In which case, I agree with you actually. But I think with those people who would draw them murdering others, people drawing minors sexualized should be put on a watchlist and be monitored. I would much rather neither be acceptable, though.
Because ultimately, what stops someone from saying, “well, drawing minors sexualized is okay, so why don’t I just go -censored- a minor?” I think a zero tolerance policy with heinous, criminal actions like pedophilia and murder is the best solution.
You make valid arguments, but your last paragraph (“if loli exists, I can rape kids”) is dangerously close to “violent video games cause school shootings” and I disagree with that very much.
I don’t agree with that at all either. I genuinely don’t believe there are people playing violent videogames to stave off murdering people. I’m not at all advocating to monitor people playing violent video games.
But honestly, both issues are radically different anyway. Time and time again, people trying to talk to minors and establish contact look at loli if they’re not looking at straight up cp. There’s been no murderer that I even know of that just loved Call of Duty.
There can be NO normalization of pedophilia in my opinion.
normalization, no absolutely not but if this person with such interests was just living their life and not raping any kids then I am okay with them “existing” albeit away from me
What do you think about zero tolerance policies making it extremely unlikely for such people to seek out professional help?
no, I was just making a point.
Yeah, who kills imaginary people on their computer?
Not to mention the ridiculous amount of “rape fantasy” porn that is completely normalised.
It’s almost like private brain-tickling nonsense isn’t indicative of real life.
I’m on your side in this but this sentence is just wrong. We glorify violence in so many ways. Rape and murder included.