A non-carceral approach to child sexual abuse material

If all that’s required is an article, then I guess Exodus Cry can’t be trusted either

I’d also suggest you look through this. It addresses a lot of the misinformation floating around.


As a sex worker rights supporter (and as a disabled person that most likely will have to resort to sex work myself once I am no longer able to financially rely on my parents to survive) Exodus Cry is a despicable anti-sex worker organization. They don’t give a shit about children. They want sex workers dead.


Do you take issue with, for example, the many autistic people who also call ABA “conversion therapy,” as it is also an attempt to abusively “fix” a feature of ourselves which is harmless but socially stigmatized? (how we define the term–and a more consistent/logical definition too, IMO)

(not to mention the shared histories regarding how they were founded. and if you do your research, you will also find large ties between psychiatric assaults on pedophiles and psychiatric assaults on nonmap queers.)

You have zero place raging against queer conversion therapy if you believe having “mental illness” is immoral, or if you support your country’s medical community and its medical abuse.

If I were you I would also look up psych’s sexual violence toward non-conforming and criminal children for the sake of “morality.” You stand by the very monsters you claim to despise.

That’s not “consent.” People cannot consent to such “experimentation” when coerced. “I’m saying yes because the alternative is jail and I don’t want to go to jail” is not “consent.” (That’s not even getting into the power dynamics that are inherent to the medical-industrial complex even under less drastic conditions, plus of course lack of informed consent because they are lying.)

You support fascists and you support states and you support medical institutions and you support prisons. You support abuse and assault and torture. Your proposals are incredibly violent and inhumane. You are the abuse apologist here. Own it.


There is no known cure for pedophilia: Inside the Mind of a Pedophile – Neuroanthropology

Therapy is supposed to prevent pedophiles from offending against children, but it doesn’t “cure” them. That would be like trying to turn a homosexual into a heterosexual.

Also, when you say “we are trying it again” or “we are going through a more compassionate route”, who’s “we”? Are you treating pedophiles? I hope not.

You’re refusing to provide a source either because you don’t really care about the conversation or you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Currently, I think it’s the latter.

There’s no shame in not understanding a particular subject. No one is an expert at everything. There’s a lot of things that I don’t know or don’t understand.

We encourage you to do more research on the subject instead of being ignorant about it. That’s why we are willing to provide you with some sources. If you want to be taken seriously, you should back up your claims.

A lot of hysteria surrounding pedophilia comes from people who are ignorant on the subject or have little to no understanding of it. It’s not based on evidence, it’s based on feelings and morals.

Also, when people say that it’s “common sense” to hate or stigmatize pedophiles (or to find lolicon disgusting and criminalizing it), that’s just an excuse for them to stay ignorant on the subject.

You can lose your job or get murdered if someone suspects you of being a pedophile:


“Expecting a credible source? TOO BAD. WALUIGI TIME.

Shoe0nHead is NOT a credible source:

Dr. Alaric Naudé is another person that called out Prostasia that also shouldn’t be considered a credible source:

Does any of that mean Prostasia is free from criticism? No, of course not. However, there are a lot of false or misleading claims regarding Prostasia that are circulating, none of which help protecting children.

You’re talking about this, right? Romanian MP wants chemical castration law for pedophiles | Romania Insider

I’m sure it has nothing to do with this:

“Who cares about making sure that pedophiles don’t commit offences against minors by giving them therapy or support, when you can just chemically castrate them, am I right?”

Nailed it!


While a lower risk of offending is a side effect of therapy for many MAPs, some recent guidance for mental health professionals suggests that the best way to achieve that outcome is by focusing on building self-acceptance and addressing the impacts of stigma. This doc just covers the basics but it’s very recent and is a great summary for those who want to learn more about effective therapy.


Oh yeah, thanks for that.

From the document that you linked:

Clinical Point: A minor-attracted person may or may not meet criteria for pedophilia or pedophilic disorder.

Clinical Point: Many MAPs internalize the societal stigma toward them, which contributes to their mental health burden.

Clinical Point: An attraction to minors may be a symptom of pedophilia-themed OCD or hypersexuality.

Clinical Point: The first consideration in treating minor-attracted persons is to overcome the stigmatization within our field.

Clinical Point: Sexual thoughts alone do not meet the threshold for mandated reporting.

Bottom Line: Minor-attracted persons report a high prevalence of general psychiatric symptoms
that often go untreated due to a lack of willing clinicians with appropriate expertise.
Providing psychiatric treatment to these patients can improve their mental health
and possibly decrease the incidence of individuals who act on their attractions.


That’s not “consent.” People cannot consent to such “experimentation” when coerced. “I’m saying yes because the alternative is jail and I don’t want to go to jail” is not “consent.”

This is a very juvenile view of t he concept of “consent”. If you accept to go into a program to avoid jail, thats still consent because you were still given a choice.

Ah yes, what a wonderful choice! Get thrown in prison where genpop will gut you like a fish or be medically experimented on like an animal or curiosity! What a progressive, humane way treat our fellow man!


That isn’t whats happening you idiot? We were experimenting different THERAPIES, not medical experiments. try harder. Like trying to decrease their sexual attraction to children or increase attraction to adults.

Yes there is a much smaller program in my country that do use sexual urges reducing drugs, but it’s a smaller program only 1/10th the size of the therapies program. And we try not to completely eliminate sexual feelings, just reduce urges by maybe 50-70%.

So you think it’s ok to coerce someone into making decisions about their body and sexual health? What if I gave someone the option between having sex with me or me “exposing” them for having taboo kinks? They’re still “making the decision” to have sex with me. But it’s coerced so consent is invalid.

When you force someone to make sexual choices by threatening them, that’s not consent.


Find me one human rights organization that supports conversion therapy, I’ll wait. It’s not an acceptable form of treatment when it’s torture.


Get thrown in prison where genpop will gut you like a fish or be medically experimented on like an animal or curiosity!

You watch too many movies. that isn’t what happens. cp offenders are often just more lonely than the average prisoner in gen pop. most violence is gang related or snitching related nonsense. But hey, if they have been randomly selected to have the experimental therapy as part of their condition for suspended sentence, it’s own them whether to get sent immediately to jail for a couple years, or cooperate.

consent isn’t some black and white nonsense. its a gradient. we didn’t violate their consent.

Testing different medications and therapies on human beings is LITERALLY medical experimentation. There’re several companies who’ve been busted for testing their medicine on Africans. We’ve rightfully called people out for torturing LGBT people by using conversion therapy. This is all unethical human experimentation.


No, consent is very black and white. If you coerce someone, there is no consent.


Sex criminals are prison pariahs alongside criminals who attack women and/or children, ex-cops, and dudes who turn state. Maybe “gutted like a fish” is an exaggeration (for the most part), but even people who just looked at CSAM get treated like fucking shit by genpop and the guards. There’s a reason pariahs often get their own sectors separate from everybody else, it’s for their own protection. These people DO get raped and murdered in prison, the movies didn’t invent that.


This sounds an awful lot like:

Either these two share similar ideas or they’re the same person. Given how @Enough_Iz_ENOUGH was suspended for “ban evasion”, I suspect the latter.


Klasovuk has not been suspended at this time, though I can’t say for sure whether or not they’re an alt. @Enough_Iz_ENOUGH (and another ban evasion account they just made a few minutes ago) was suspended because they were an alt of a separate account that was suspended back in August.


I know this isn’t an issue for most people here, but I’d like to remind everyone that many abuse survivors were coerced into “consenting” to their abuse. This forum is a safe space for survivors, and we may have members who experienced just that. Please be considerate of them when debating the validity of consent.


Ah okay, I wasn’t sure. I guess they really do just share similar ideas.

There was something else that I wanted to mention.

According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary (which can be found by googling “consent”), “consent” is defined as:

permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

“Informed consent” is a type of consent and it is defined as:

permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia defines “consent” as:

Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another. It is a term of common speech, with specific definitions as used in such fields as the law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships. Consent as understood in specific contexts may differ from its everyday meaning. For example, a person with a mental disorder, a low mental age, or under the legal age of sexual consent may willingly engage in a sexual act that still fails to meet the legal threshold for consent as defined by applicable law.

Wikipedia defines “informed consent” as:

Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient’s role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient’s consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research and to disclosing a person’s medical information.

Unlike other things, consent IS black and white. Either there is consent given or there isn’t. A child or a person suffering from a mental disorder may NOT be able to give consent.

Of course, it’s not always explicitly stated as “yes” or “no”, hence implied consent. This obviously can’t be used on people who don’t have (or are unable to understand) enough information, such as children, which is why age of consent laws exist.

In the case of CSAM offenders… They either go to prison or have to be put on a sex offender registry (sometimes, a prison sentence first AND THEN getting put on a sex offender registry). While it was their choice to consume CSAM, once they were arrested, they HAD to make a choice (if they even get to make one).

“Consent” is most certainly NOT what is happening here.


Late but I just want to say that regarding klosovuk’s asinine stigmatize the attraction but not the person nonsense. That Attraction is a mental process, a pattern of thought. Thoughts are never moral or immoral, they are amoral as in entirety devoid of moral value and outside the domain of moral appraisal. People generally understand this when it concerns positive thoughts, as in no one believes that someone can become saintly just by thinking about doing good things without actually doing them . But people do however believe in concerning numbers that someone can become reprehensible - monstrous even - by simply thinking bad thoughts. What quirk of human psychology accounts for this I can’t say, but it is entirely irrational.

Moreover, to say that something is immoral is to necessarily imply that the perpetrator of that act has done something immoral. There is no such thing as a platonically immoral act that somehow ceases to be immoral when someone actually does it, that’s moronic.