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.
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.