[Study] Legal pathways and alternatives for Minor Attracted Persons

A german study is researching legal alternatives for people with a pedophilic attraction. I recommend to take part in this survey. It is conducted by the same people who published the study on sex dolls being helpful, so they are trustworthy. Contact info on the bottom.

Through this study, we aim to explore the legal and illegal options available for satisfying sexual needs within this group.

The primary objective of this study is to gain an overview of lawful means for sexual satisfaction for individuals with pedophilic sexual interests. Additionally, we seek to understand whether specific personality traits influence these decisions.

Furthermore, this study examines the impact of recent tightening of sexual criminal laws in Germany on the ways individuals legally express their sexuality.

Important note:
The study states that fictional pornography such as stories and cartoons are illegal to use, because it cannot take every national law into account. When you fill this survey out consider lolicon e.g as “illegal”. This is important for the slider and questions asking for the sexual gratification derived from illegal and legal material.

Study team:
University Bonn
Franziska Mathäus, M. A.

University Duisburg-Essen
Johannes Fuß, Prof Dr. med.
Jeanne Desbuleux, M. Sc.

Mail:
[email protected]

3 Likes

I read a shocking article, headlined “‘Grave Sexual Abuse’: When the Word Rape Doesn’t Apply To Boys” [by Zahara Dawoodbhoy, 21 Sep 2020], about a South Asian nation/culture in which men have been raping boys with impunity. The boys dare not resist or complain.

There, girls’ vaginal virginity is traditionally/normally verified before an arranged marriage takes place. The ‘virginity’ of boys, however, seems to not be an issue, and therefore they cannot be sexually ‘spoiled’ or considered raped.

The following relevant segment is taken from the extensive article:


… “I think there is a myth that it only happens to female children, and that has to do with the cultural aspect of people feeling that rape is a female-related issue,” Sonali Gunasekera, Senior Director of Advocacy at the Family Planning Association (FPA) told Roar Media. “That is probably why this archaic law is still in place — because that’s how it was seen from afar.”

Despite this myth, the fact remains that instances where young boys are raped in Sri Lanka are surprisingly frequent. Director of the Child Protection Force, Milani Salpitikorala, says that 90% of her current cases involve young boys, and the idea that the boy child is somehow less susceptible to sexual abuse and rape in this country is completely false.

“Our mindsets are set in a culture of ‘Don’t worry about your child if he is a boy,’ but the boy child is as unsafe in the hands of perpetrators as much as the girl child is, if not more,” she said. …

Source website: Roar Media Archive - 'Grave Sexual Abuse': When the Word Rape Doesn’t Apply To Boys


Even here in the West, male victims of sexual assault or rape are still more hesitant or unlikely than female victims to report their offenders. They refuse to open up and/or ask for help for fear of being perceived by peers and others as weak or non-masculine.

Men can take care of themselves, and boys are basically little men. One might see some of that mentality reflected in, for example, a New York Times feature story (“She Was a Big Hit on TikTok. Then a Fan Showed Up With a Gun”, February 19, 2022).

Written by Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson, the piece at one point states that “Instagram … [has] been accused of causing mental and emotional health problems among teenage female users.” A couple paragraphs down, it is also stated that, “Teen girls have been repeatedly targeted by child predators.”

Why write this when she must have known that teen boys are also targeted by such predators? And if mainstream news-media fail to fully realize this fact in their journalism, why would or should the rest of society?

It could also be the same mindset that may explain why the author of Childhood Disrupted included only one male among her six interviewed subjects, there likely having been such a small pool of ACE-traumatized males willing to formally tell his own story of traumatic childhood adversity, especially that of a sexual nature.

To get anywhere, males need to have the same strong mainstream-media (news, social and entertainment) support that females have had for decades, and still do. Males have instead observed thus known that for the most part they haven’t been taken seriously.

It might be yet more evidence of a continuing yet subtle societal take-it-like-a-man attitude, one in which so many men will choose to abstain from ‘complaining’ about their torturous youth, as that is what ‘real men’ do.

Update:

They contacted me and told me that they are aware of the legality of certain fictional content, but decided to list anything sexual as illegal, because it is an international study and they cannot take every single national law into account.

2 Likes

they could have labeled it as ‘legally gray’ with an asterisk that denoted jurisdictional legality.

Nah, the problem is dividing into legal and illegal in the first place. I mean the real interesting part is if someone uses fictional, or real content.

Listing every jurisdiction is just hard. Some places ban drawings, but exclude text etc. Some ban everything except audio. It would be easier to streamline it.

Anyways, I am not complaining since classifying everything as illegal will make the legal options seem lackluster. With the result being that the majority favors illegal material and I believe it will be mostly fictional content.

2 Likes

I am fascinated by the use of realistic child-like sex dolls and their implications of realistic-looking (though still fictional) content. I’ve noticed discourse among some lolicons/shotacons who seem to condemn/despise others with similar but more extreme tastes. Lolicons/shotacons who hate on toddlercons/babycons, for example (something I consider gravely hypocritical).

I noted a few lolicon accounts that complained/ranted about those who consume realistic 3D content, accusing them of being “actual pedophiles/MAPs” who have no place in the lolicon community. My issue with all this is the fact that studies seem to indicate that even using an actual physical doll seems to help alleviate desires for actual sexual contact with children. Given that, I must doubt that pics and vids of realistic 3D animations would inspire any crimes either.

(For that matter, research indicates that those who consume actual CSAM similarly rarely go on to commit hands-on offenses of their own, leading to some researchers advocating a decriminalization of CSAM, at least in a limited fashion. Of course, such an idea comes with several caveats to beware of. Regardless, if even those who consume CSAM hardly perform their own molestations, a CGI animation is at least about as likely to inspire much the same)

Like, these accounts try to “expose” other hentai artists. “Oh, this lolicon artist follows these other animators who make realistic animations! Spread the word!”

It seems to come from a place of ignorance and a desire to toss others under the bus. “Lolicon ≠ pedophilia! We cannot allow actual pedophiles into our community, even if they’re non-offending!” Bruh, the lack of solidarity is rather disgusting. A., what’s morally wrong about simply being attracted to children (something acknowledged by the vast majority of experts as something programmed and immutable within subjects, some going so far as to advocate calling it an “orientation”, albeit one that cannot be safely acted upon with an actual child)?; B., we’re all in the same boat of being viewed as dangerous perverts because of our sexual interests regardless, so might as well try to understand and show solidarity rather than belittle and exclude. Kicking NOMAPs out won’t make your community look more “respectful” in the eyes of the general public :person_shrugging:.

(Seriously, saw an account say “MAPs, including NOMAPs, please DNI!” Like, fucking why? Deliberately acknowledging that NOMAPs exist and then explicitly excluding them is just straight-up prejudice/bigotry at that point, there’s no excuse other than personal disgust!)

2 Likes