If you get a paywall, disabling JavaScript can get around it 
Or Web Archive:
2 Likes
So, the document referenced has 41 pages, so I didn’t read it all yet. But it does seem legitimate. It uses video game sales, separating them into groups of violent and non-violent ones, and compares them with amounts of crimes during periods of times of those sales. The result is a pattern of lags, in which there is seen a clear reduction of violent crimes in days where violent video games were sold in huge numbers. It’s a correlation, but the repeatability of that effect does strongly suggest the possibility of causality. I wouldn’t call it a definite proof, but rather, extremely strong evidence, that video games can have a cathartic effect on people who want to commit a violent crime.
I believe the same principle applies to pornography and sex crimes as well, though, we are in desperate need of stronger evidence to further highlight this correlation, aside from the wonderful work of Milton Diamond that has been repeatedly cited on this forum.
I firmly believe that pornography is a form of entertainment. That which entertains is also what titillates the senses and the mind, but in their own different ways.
These types of studies make me optimistic that the SCOTUS will finally see reason and fix our First Amendment.
In case you skimmed over one of my links.
There is another factor. How willing authorities are to investigate.
Germany has suspiciously low child sex rates. Extremely low. And they put a disproportionate amount of focus on “progressive” programs, which would only cover a tiny number of people (most culprits would not fall under them by default), and which already have indicators they’re no better than placebo, which is an indicator that people just play along with it to get a lighter sentence.
Germany also hasn’t quite legalized lolis, and they’re moving to ban sex dolls. There are also surprise discoveries, like huge rings of people being discovered out of nowhere, and associated sex abuse there. My suspicion is that Germany isn’t taking their problem seriously.
They don’t investigate, they don’t get numbers. This is similar to the West in the past where all the cases involving priests and Boy Scouts were hush-hush quiet. In some of the papers for Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, it turns out the same hands-on offenders keep getting access to children over and over and over and over. They focus on trying to therapy them out of the problem with solutions which clearly do not work.
In Japan, they are a lot more paranoid about offenders, and there are incidents in some papers where they kept going after “suspicious people” who turned out to be fairly normal They take it seriously, although they take the hands-on side a lot more seriously than indecent imagery, which they view as more of a minor crime than the West does.
1 Like
Trust me, I had this in mind when talking about “different factors”. There are factors that reduce actual crime rates and factors that reduce the number, without changing anything in the real world.
It scares me that these stories don’t surprise me anymore. The same situation was within the UK, with them (of course) banning lolicon artworks, and prosecuting people for possessing them, but then keeping a list of individuals who happened to create grooming gangs targetting teenage girls and kids, from fear of racial tensions escalating. If I recall correctly, one of the politicians had the opinion of “If those (underage) girls come back to them, that must mean they like it”. They didn’t display any will to do anything about the situation, and I don’t know if anything was handled in the end.
The mere fact of absence of any shreds of evidence that such arts or sex dolls could reduce or increase sex crimes, making both possibilities equal in probability, and politicians skewing into one side over the other on false premises suggests to me that their attitude to protecting children is nothing than just performative.
They’re loyal to one thing and one thing only - their personal feelings. I find it difficult to take a country seriously when they send out journalists to Japan, only to say things like “why can’t you Japanese be more like the UK?”
“I was interviewed by this lady at my workplace. One-on-one Q&A session for three hours. Through that I realized one most important thing. I was thinking about releasing it online as manga but… The core difference between this interviewer and myself was the attitude towards human being. My position is… “all human beings have “dirty desires”. Isn’t it better to be vented appropriately?”. On the contrary…Ms Susie(sic) stated this. “All human beings are naturally innocent and have no “dirty desires” and reading media…media depicting erotic, pedophilic, and gore contents will affect them to be corrupted”.
Then I realized. So the definition of human being, or Operating System(sic) is different. After three hour long interview, this realization was the most productive experience, I think. Oh, on top of that, she said, with a look of a hitman in BLACK LAGOON , “My desire is to put all pedophiles, and ones who produce pedophilic media into jail”. Ah, “Justice” is kinda scary when it infects people. Isn’t she trying to substitute everything into the subject of that sentence? It’s been two times where I was interviewed like this. She ignored me when I said… “Don’t look at us to turn away from your problem within the UK”….
During the interview, we touched upon ways that we can tackle the child abuse issues in Commonwealth world. She said “banning all fictions like this!”. I suggested “Well, solve poverty first. Legalizing fictions that has no victims will lower the crime rate”. She seemed like she didn’t get the idea. It seems that her view is a common one throughout the Commonwealth countries (that’s why you get arrested… for having porn comic in Canada), so objection in words might not help much. It might be better to foster… young, enthusiastic “comrades” within them.
It drives me up the wall when I see sound reasoning like the one presented by this man fall by the wayside to some pompous, self-righteous, arrogant Anglo bitch with absolutely no respect for anything that doesn’t conform to her beliefs, ideals, or presumptions.
Yes, it’s true that Japan has had some issues, but to assume, without evidence, that the fictional material they create and consume has anything to do with their ability to tackle issues such as this only furthers my original claim. It’s very saddening.
3 Likes
I have a feeling that the science behind all of this will come to reflect what it is that we already know, that these materials do not influence, normalize, or incite actual crimes or instances of child sexual abuse and that they serve as a safe, healthy outlet for people with said desires.
We already have a distinction between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder, as outlined in the DSM-5. People should be allowed to reconcile who they are sexually through expression and indulgence via masturbation, regardless of what their interests are. To deny them that right out of some puritanical illusion of “preserving morality” is totalitarianism.
2 Likes
No, you dummy. It is literally food. It just goes in another stomach. Think about it, it makes much more sense than you think
And the bit which I won’t bother quoting is the equivalent of saying. Oh, it’s better than being barely kept alive on hospital drips.
I might be inclined to agree with you. If you didn’t just tell me to go die with a beautiful euphemism at the end of your post. Thank you very much. Consider reading what other people actually write for once. Correct your conduct or leave. Don’t bother me with giberish.
At the very least, the term hands-on offender can be useful. Predators inspire a far more sinister image in my head, than simply an opposite of non-offending. But, perhaps that is because someone can offend by looking at the wrong image / video, so it doesn’t count much weight heree.
It’s a correct observation. A lot of people in the west seem to have this belief, of people being good by nature and becoming evil through the corruption of their moral values or some other singular arbitrary concept associated with “goodness”. And I think the Judeo-Christian basis of many of our countries is really to blame for that idea existing to this day.
What is more, it’s easily disprovable. Psychopathy, for example, has extremely strong evidence of heritability, suggesting the predisposition for psychopathy is genetic and can manifest itself as a result of the person’s interaction with an adverse environment (like a bad childhood caused by abusive parents).
Psychopaths have a lot of differences in brain structure in comparison to other human beings, like for example: reduced connections between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for empathy and feelings of guilt, or the amygdala, which mediates fear and anxiety. This affects their decision-making process in a way that results in them being more prone to harm people and commit crimes.
So some people, are just being born evil. That doesn’t mean they can’t be good, that doesn’t mean all psychopaths are destined to become criminals, most of them don’t. But the ones who did commit crimes were born with a predisposition to commit them. So the very foundation of this idea is simply false.
Also, wasn’t BBC also responsible for this one popular article (some lolicon on Twitter has sent me a link to it, but I don’t remember the name of it and I can’t find it, maybe someone will know which one I mean), where a journalist has investigated the lolicon artworks being sold in Japan, admitted that Japan has improved a lot of laws, delegalizing child pornography possession, delegalizing the practice of hiring young teenage girls in cafes to perform sexually suggestive services on their clients and so on in recent years, where lolicon artworks were distributed legally, but then made a claim, that lolicon works will result in “normalization of pedophilia”?
This person has observed, that during a long time span of many years, two things were happening in Japan:
- Lolicon works were freely distributed
- Japan has improved protections of children
And their conclusion was, that certainly, lolicon works must cause Japan to change in some never defined by them way, but most likely negative when it comes to children wellbeing. Regardless of what they believe this concept means, I think it’s irrelevant since both of those observations that this journalist has made didn’t result in Japan making any decisions that would result in more children getting hurt, the opposite has happened.
I regret not saving this article, since it’s genuinely impressive to see a person debunk the conclusion of their own article with the article itself, unable to see their ideological inconsistency of their reasoning.
1 Like
It could be argued that those other things are disappearing, because pedophilia is becoming less normalized, and that lolicon hasn’t disappeared yet, but that it’s presence helps push back in the other direction. Their point isn’t contradictory, but it does follow the fundamentally flawed notion of normalization.
I can understand a country which decides child pornography possession is not worth the risk in terms of censorship or privacy to pursue, but hiring young teenage girls in cafes is just purely sketchy. It sounds so sketchy, it sounds like the infamous vending machines, which weren’t even really real in the end. Child pornography was never really that legal either, as it was still obscene IIRC.
Japan also had a problem with gropers on subway lines, although they have improved on this a lot lately.
An important reminder. To cut off lolicon and sex dolls, all that has to happen is that the people in Japan decide it isn’t really “acceptable” any more. It may have been more so when weird cafes or images were kind of tolerated, but now it is the last wall, and it is one which could fall very fast. Removing the mosaics might even be the final blow, as they wouldn’t need pubic hairless girls to carry on that facade to evade that law.
Those cafes sound so freakin weird.
The hypothesis was that these artworks will normalize pedophilia. It wasn’t that it normalizes pedophilia ineffectively, making Japan still able to denormalize it. I like that you play a devil’s advocate because it’s always good to question your own conclusions, but in the case of this article, there was undoubtfully a bad faith intent on the part of the journalist. The entire article was written in a way that was trying to show Japan in a bad light, as the country that “festers pedophiles”.
I don’t know how true this was, but I think Japan has or had a lot of cafes with young women dressed up in maid costumes etc. I think the article mentioned services like “saying dirty words to the customers”, things like that. Nothing sexual, but sexually suggestive.
But that is unlikely to ever happen. For ages, those works caused no problem, and Japanese still do remember the era during which they had strict governmental censorships on arts. With fans of the mediums produced by Japan constantly growing, it’s doubtful the amounts of people opposing prohibition of lolicon works will shrink. Quite the opposite, it seems to me that there are way more people willing to defend it, even though they might not personally like it than it was 20 years ago. It’s a possibility, but a very unlikely one.
1 Like
What a joke, do they even know what a pedophile is. Can they tell one apart from a hebe? I doubt it.
The trope shows up in anime, but I can’t say how real it is.
The first step pushed by parent’s groups was to regulate it. Restrict rape scenarios. And I wouldn’t be surprised, if they pushed up the ages bit by bit. If it’s a tougher ball to roll, they might do that. The same is happening in America where they’re starting off by cracking down on younger ages and turning up the heat.
If you presume that it was toddlercon which screwed over Eychaner, rather than lolicon, that might make a lot of sense. And no one will even notice, because it doesn’t affect them, and they can blame it on his “sex offender status”. Toddlercon appears to be the only thing which actual pedophiles come close to consistently liking, go figure.
P.S. If one more fucktard tells me I am fucking disordered. I am going to jump off this fucking building and just end this bullshit. Stop inventing fucking disorders. That is how a fucking pedophile is. Yes. Pedophiles are emotionally unstable. Pedophiles are treated like shit. Fucking deal with it. Don’t give me the false friend bullshit.
1 Like
Yes, but now you have a new generation of parents, people who were raised with the lolicon existence being the case. Realizing on their own skin, that these arts aren’t dangerous. The previous generation had to decide what they want to do with those arts shortly after they originated as an entity. They had no knowledge about it that we have nowadays. It was a new thing, an unknown thing, and that caused fear.
America and Europe are a little bit different when it comes to pornography culturally.
I don’t think anyone in here has been inventing new disorder, much rather, they are using the ones described in DSM-5.
Some are, but most I’ve talked with tend to be rather stable and reasonable.
I don’t know why would anyone tell you that. All I can say is that I have a hard time understanding what you wrote. Mind that I’m not a native English speaker, so I have issues understanding irony, double meanings, some references, idioms etc.
What screwed over Eyechaner was the fact that he was a registered sex offender in the state of Virginia violating the terms of his release. If he had been caught looking at run-of-the-mill smut, like on pornhub with simulated incest themes or petite JAV actresses, he’d likely been charged with 1462 or 1466. I know of a case in Iowa where a sex offender watched an episode of Game of Thrones and was still charged with obscenity because of their parole, which restricted “pornography, of any kind”.
I’d rather not discuss that, though.
Pedophilic disorder and pedophilia are not the same thing. It’s even outlined in the DSM-5, much to the controversy of prudes and lawmakers who didn’t want pedophilia to be recognized as a “sexual orientation”.
For the record, I’m not a pedophile. I just prefer to see people as people, defined by who they are as a whole, rather than their sexual preferences or orientation. People who sexually abuse or exploit children are distinct from those with a pedophilic sexual orientation or preference, in the same way that violent or opportunistic and sadistic rapists who prey on vulnerable women are from heterosexual adults who are into BDSM.
3 Likes
I would also add, that there is nothing wrong with having a disorder.
I, for example, meet the criteria of a schizoid personality disorder. I don’t really want to do anything about it, because I genuinely prefer the solitary life. An understanding of which disorders you might or might not have allows you to have a point of reference to google in case of dealing with any life issues, and it gives you a better understanding of yourself, which results in a better decision-making process, that eliminates unnecessary suffering due to mistakes you otherwise would not make.
Mental disorders don’t define people. They are simply used to categorize sets of peoples traits or tendencies, trying to find solutions to issues people with such sets tend to encounter. So having a mental disorder only means, that there are solutions that can help you with life problems, that has been tested already.
1 Like
They are one and the same, retard. One is a pointlessly stigmatizing euphemism for the other.
You know it. I know it. Let’s cut the bullshit.
Let’s have a flame war, fucktard. Little arrogant weeb trash trying to educate people on bullshit they hardly know any shit about, and try to posture. Disgusting. Not even consuming clearly taboo content for any legitimate reason. Just going against society and it’s morals. It’s like this is one big fucking game.
You are being incredibly rude. You don’t give a shit, therefore I don’t give a shit throwing it back in your face. Fucking hell, this is pathetic. The last thing I need is some random casual who thinks they know it all, and they’re all that. When you’re in the wrong, you don’t back down, you simply double down on your bullshit.
Fine, I’ll entertain your bullshit for a brief moment. Pedophillic disorder exists as a instrument to try to conversion therapy a preferential to non-preferential. It is right there in the definition. That is all we are. Lab rats for you to stomp on. Almighty one. Just kill me the fuck already and end this shit. How fucking dare you.
Every single day, I have to be someone’s fucking dog, and pretend being stomped on and defecated on is perfectly fine, well I’ve had it with your shit.
Let’s slam this through. You. Can’t. Convert. A. Fucking. Preferential. To. Non-preferential. Magically.
It is a fucking innate trait. Even that clown Seto wrote as such in his steaming piece of crap of a paper.
It would depend on how you would define that. For instance, some people do have a high affinity for CP, which they can’t shake off, and it can be beneficial to someone’s mental health. But, it’s also the fruit of the forbidden tree, and it should be avoided. The grim reality is that I wouldn’t even know what to tell someone, because it appears as if there is literally nothing I, or anyone else on this earth can do. And it is very frustrating.
Have we discussed this before? No matter. Well, if someone is extorting someone like that piece of crap who got nabbed by Facebook’s zero day, or that molester who AI threw a fit at. They’re certainly very unpleasant sorts. It’s not really a disorder. It is just pure evil. They’ll stop at nothing to meet their ends.
And frankly, if that is what you mean by a disorder, that is just insulting people with disorders. Branding them with a disorder is just an elaborate way to brand someone as evil, and have that follow them around. This cheapens disorders which are already attributed to those who are very vulnerable, and I have already linked to the philosophy on this sort of issue.
Child predator may be a truly fitting descriptor.
My mind is a chaotic pile of shit. A very complicated muddle of shit. But, I can’t imagine myself, or anyone I know (or knew) doing those things. However, I will never use disorder as a synonym for evil. Evil is evil.
Everything has to be so medicalized these days. But, even some psychologists admitted that simply committing a crime doesn’t mean you have some antisocial disorder. A disorder which exists purely on grounds of antisocial behavior dooes not make sense. There is some pushback to the mess. But, it is slow.
I have plenty of fantasies of death. Death is a beautiful thing. It’ll take me. Will there be lolis there? Probably not… Just emptiness. One can dream.
Actually, most are like that. It is just the difference between removing the bullshit, and stringing someone along. I am plenty stable and reasonable. Rather, you’re the one who is unreasonable, and trying to gaslight me, newbie. Quit roleplaying. It’s beneath you.
If you really think people aren’t hiddenly anxious or depressed or emotionally unstable, then you have seen nothing. But, you don’t act all anxious in public, when trying to do a PR gig. The answer is simple. People are treated like garbage. By the government. And everyone else. It would actually be more unusual, if someone wasn’t like that, as that would imply they’re just a robot.
I would actually be extremely concerned, if you take some sort of extreme fixated view where someone is pathologized for having normal human emotions, which seems to be your interpretation of the imaginary “disorder”. This would imply you’re suffering from a mental disorder where you fundamentally cannot understand human beings, and treat them like automatons lumped inside neatly labelled boxes, and it is therefore prudent not to waste any brain cells calculating you.
By the way, calling someone crazy, simply because they’re evil. Or using pathology as an insult against me, or even the evil people, is extraordinarily ableist. Particularly towards all the people who actually do suffer real disorders.