Dutch Study on Fictional Material


Someone recommended this to me on Twitter sometime ago but I hadn’t looked at it until today. It goes over MAPs and their use of it, but it’s mostly focused on the use of things like 2D/3DCG lolicon/shotacon and how it affects them and they use it, with much of its data coming in the form of surveys and by observing user discussion.

As someone who pays attention to individuals like this, it’s very refreshing to see the things I know and have observed be validated on an empirical level.

I used DeepL and my extremely limited knowledge of Dutch to read it. I’ll leave the abstract (which is in English) and link both the study and DeepL.

“Virtuele kinderpornografie vs geanimeerde volwassenenpornografie”


Virtual child pornography has been on the rise for several years, while it remains unclear to whom such material is attractive. This research investigates any overlap between watchers of animated adult pornography and of virtual child pornography. It also examines (opinions on) the reasons for consuming virtual child pornography, including how this varies for (non-)realistic virtual pornography and (non-)paedophiles. The mixed methods study consists of an online survey and a focus group with nonoffending paedophiles. Results show similarities between the two types of animated pornography. There appears to be an overlap between those who have watched animated adult pornography and those who have watched virtual child pornography. Watching either types of animated pornography is associated with a higher chance of being attracted to real or fictional minors, though these associations are stronger in the case of virtual child pornography. Reasons for watching virtual child pornography encompassed a whole range of reasons, ranging from an aesthetic preference for animated (child) pornography, to it filling a therapeutic function. The latter reason partly explains the more positive opinion of paedophiles on the phenomenon compared to non-paedophiles.