The issue at hand is interdisciplinary: it touches upon aspects of psychology, child safety, internet freedom, prison reform, groomer panic debunking, sex-positivism, callouts of fascist emotional manipulation and hysteria tactics, sex work etc. when you look at what Prostasia is advocating for, they are actually pretty damn progressive, with the only things spooking normies actually being the idea of drawings of kiddie sex and sex dolls.
Rightwingers are much more united in their front and even contradictory when you look at things like pro-gun & anti-sex-doll, the gun nuts, nofappers, anti-abortion, qanoners, tax cuts all their groups huddle together with much more cohesiveness. To the extent to which there are supporters in each of these leftie groups, I think more effort and coordination should be fostered to bring them together as they each complete one another’s narrative. And when each of their own issues join to advocate cohesively for the same framework, the receptiveness to understanding the harms of- and ditching- the sexual-deviancy framework becomes not only easier, but natural.
I understand that as it stands Prostasia’s fight for informing the public is only one of the many facets of what it does for child protection, but people running the org or participating in whatever capacity have connections and should seriously consider perhaps a dedicated group that brainstorms new ways of outreach to the public sphere. It would make sense for example for a group like EFF to say “by the way policing this content doesn’t solve crime” or some prison reform group to be doing the same thing.
Finally on the multi-front approach it should be not only about the multiple orgs who can talk about their side of how this flawed framework perpetuates problems, but about the multiple ways in which each issue is wrong in.
For example in the Belgian study it is stated that only a fraction of people were consuming loli due to pedophilic attraction. Many were doing it either because yes-it’s-an-anime-and-there’s-a-kid-sex-scene-somewhere-but-it’s-not-the-point, because they were trying to process their own emotions, or because the taboo was part of the thrill. Driving the point that treating instances of consumption as all pedophilic casts a wide net that hurts way more people who have no such attractions, attacks the issue from an angle that “fiction doesn’t hurt, trust us” can’t satisfy alone. Presenting this in the context of how indiscriminate bans hurt more than they help right alongside of cases of minors getting jailed for being caught with nudes of themselves/same-age partners to drive home the point that these things have to be thought out thoroughly not only eases the argument in, but also gets the foot in the door with the idea that this is a dangerous hammer to weild that has destroyed lives before, working to chip away at the public consensus that is just “yeah just do maximum penalties for these monsters”.
There’s nothing duplicitous about this since these are all arguments we’re already making. It’s all about optimizing the flow and easing it in with applied knowledge of psychology of the masses.
I also think more movies/documentaries about how the flaws of the current approach are hurting people should ease the public consciousness into the idea. The cycle of politicians only voting one way due to the social stigma, money being wasted and innocents getting hurt, and ongoing sex abuses that remain out of grasp because of policy need to make periodic presence to get into people’s heads that there is a problem. They may not yet be ready en masse for overhauling the entire framework but the idea that a problem exists and that at its core the public one-track-mindedness on the issue perpetuates it goes a long way.
Even if they don’t all come out together and say “Prostasia is the way” loudly - and probably shouldn’t as that would be a far easier cow to milk for fearmongers - multidisciplinary advocacy and allowing the many points to come together on their own and start painting a conclusion in the public mind. They would trust the conclusions more if they were playing their own part in putting the puzzle together.