“As long as it cannot be proven that these drawings encourage damaging behaviour then I think we ought to protect freedom of speech and artistic expression.”
Denmark sounds pretty smart and logical.
other simply require a naked child
The idea of some countries having such a vague definition of “child pornography” that it simply requires just having a naked child is horrifying. I’m glad the US does not have such a vague definition, because our home videos have me as a naked baby.
A lot of information tends to be out-of-date and ever shifting, so it is really hard to chase down exactly what each country is doing, however I have heard of Canada and the United Kingdom being particularly harsh on that.
I did hear of a case in Canada where it was ruled that invading someone’s home over such low level imagery was excessive, although I never saw the original article regarding it. It may not still be the case, but it is usually good to exercise vigilance when dealing with such matters and to lean on the side of caution.
There is the possibility of taking the possessor’s intent into consideration, although I would be afraid that it might drive consumers of such low level content underground into dangerous echo chambers. Some may also use such content when having no other option to avoid escalating, if they remain on the surface, then it may be easier to slowly wean them to alternatives or otherwise keep them from mingling with undesirables.
Intent is also a very difficult thing to prove and law enforcement may start relying on unreliable stereotypes to decide whether someone is using it for sexual purposes. This only become more problematic, if predictive policing models utilizing AI come into play.
There have been cases where hotel staff saw a father and daughter book a hotel room and assumed he was abusing her, based on the harmful stereotype of lone men with girls being child abusers. The police ended up barging into the room and arresting the man. It turned out that he did nothing of the sort.
Lolicon sites are hands-down the best support places for me, with the exception of pedo hating places like Sankaku which are cesspools.
Everyone there has the same interest as you, not trying to gaslight you into thinking that porn is evil or you are and not going on and on about the virtues of lobotomy and castration (shots fired at VirPed). That just disgusts me, it disgusts me so much I can’t talk to them about problems at all, it is so uncomfortable and nauseous.
If you have a site that you think does a good job at moderation, please ask them if they would like to be part of our No Children Harmed program. We didn’t reach out to any of them yet.
Are you able to link the PDF?
There isn’t a PDF, we can make one if you want but the link above has all the info that would go into it.
PDF of the letter I meant. I think you said there was a PDF copy.
Thanks for that. I wonder why they didn’t decide to publish this study. I’ve tried finding other similar studies, but this is really all there is
I think because it wasn’t really a study, it was a literature search. The study that needs to be done hasn’t been done yet. We’re trying to raise money for it and we are more than 10% there so far. https://prostasia.org/donations/research-fund/
Which one’s your favorite? How many have you visited recently?
How long have the donations been going on? I will donate some, as well. I hope the goal gets reached
Bumping because I found some articles that may be of interest.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1524838020942754
I’m still looking to acquire access to these, though, judging by their abstracts, the findings ought to be of great interest to the Prostasia Foundation.
I’d purchase these myself, but I’m currently in a precarious financial situation.
Funnily enough, I remember some people on 4chan/8kun translating that Danish study into English.
Let me see if I can find the archive…
edit
Here it is! Best you’re gonna get: https://archive.vn/8o7vG
This is perfect! Thank you so much.
Anyway - I found this.
It’s not the most robust or “killing” literature, considering that it’s taken from a law and philosophy journal, but it certainly helps frame a convincing argument that no reasonable person would disagree with.
In this chapter, we ask three questions about pedophilia: (1) Is it immoral to be a pedophile? (2) Is it immoral for pedophiles to seek out sexual contact with children? (3) Is it immoral for pedophiles to satisfy their sexual preferences by using computer-generated graphics, sex dolls, and/or sex robots that mimic children? We argue that (1) it is not immoral to be a pedophile, (2) it is immoral for pedophiles to seek out sexual contact with children because of (and only because of) the expected harm to children, and (3) it is morally permissible for pedophiles to satisfy their sexual preferences in ways that do not involve any real children.
Found this! From Cambridge University.
Law review!
Chie asked me to post it in here, since he can’t do 3 consecutive replies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/tp201796/
Abstract:
Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder that is inter-related with but distinct from child sexual offending (CSO). Neural alterations reportedly contribute to both pedophilia and CSO, but until now, no study has distinguished the brain structural anomalies associated with pedophilia from those specifically associated with CSO in pedophilic men. Using high-resolution T1-weighted brain images and voxel-based morphometry, we analyzed the gray matter (GM) volume of the following 219 men recruited at four acquisition sites in Germany: 58 pedophiles with a history of CSO, 60 pedophiles without any history of CSO and 101 non-pedophilic, non-offending controls to control for the effects of age, education level, verbal IQ, sexual orientation and the acquisition site. Although there were no differences in the relative GM volume of the brain specifically associated with pedophilia, statistical parametric maps revealed a highly significant and CSO-related pattern of above vs below the ‘normal’ GM volume in the right temporal pole, with non-offending pedophiles exhibiting larger volumes than offending pedophiles. Moreover, regression analysis revealed that the lower GM volume of the dorsomedial prefrontal or anterior cingulate cortex was associated with a higher risk of re-offending in pedophilic child molesters. We believe our data provide the first evidence that CSO in pedophilia rather than pedophilia alone is associated with GM anomalies and thus shed new light on the results of previous studies on this topic. These results indicate the need for new neurobehavioral theories on pedophilia and CSO and may be potentially useful for treatment or prevention approaches that aim to reduce the risk of (re)offending in pedophilia.
Conclusion:
The present study substantiates the idea that CSO in pedophilia rather than pedophilia alone is associated with changes in GM integrity, particularly in the right temporal pole. The risk of (re)offending was associated with a GM reduction in the dorsomedial PFC/ACC. Both findings indicate that morphometric markers associated with CSO in pedophiles may be potentially useful for the treatment or prevention approaches that aim to reduce the risk of (re)offending in pedophilia.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1079063220965953
Interesting article I found - from the UK of all places!
We have brilliant scientists, just a government that won’t listen to them.