I’ve probably already created a thread discussing this, but I feel it’s necessary to bring it up again.
We seriously need to have an open discussion addressing the merits (or lack thereof) regarding a common claim I’ve been seeing be spewed from antis, prudes, and otherwise censorship-friendly communities and pundits with regard to pedophilic erotic fiction and child sex dolls.
I’m talking specifically about the “normalization” fallacy.
The claim that simply allowing the idea that pedophilia, be it depictions or descriptions of it which cast it in a positive or neutral light whether it’s for narrative or erotic purposes in art and literature will “normalize”, or breed a culture which “normalizes” and enables these attitudes, beliefs, or tastes friendly to or welcoming to these ideals, and by extension, causing or driving people to commit hands-on CSA offenses or trade CSAM.
I can (and probably already have) written up multi-paragraph essays criticizing or attacking this dubious claim.
My usual criticisms are:
-
It is a biased, pessimistic assumption with no facts, statistics, scientific, historical, or otherwise empirical accounts to support it
-
It assumes that people can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy with respect to undesirable, unsavory, offensive tastes or ideas
-
Materials that stimulate one’s sexual preferences and desire, like most things, can be and are routinely compartmentalized and consumed on a ‘reality vs fiction’ approach in much the same way that we compartmentalize other kinds of stimulating or entertaining material
(eg. “it’s not real and we know it’s not real, so why act like it’s real?”) -
There is zero evidence, empirical or otherwise, to suggest that this will occur or has already occurred outside of the limited the context of fictional artwork and erotic material
-
It trivializes and undermines the rule of law with respect to crimes involving CSAM and other CSA-related offenses (such as grooming) by incorrectly painting all pedophilic persons who consume legal, victimless fictional media as inevitable CSA offenders or CSAM collectors
-
Though conflicted, the broad scientific concensus acknowledges a correlation, also acknowledges there is no causal link between the consumption of pornography and the commission of sex offenses, including adult rapes and CSA offenses
-
Even studies which entertain some level of causality will admit that pornography use alone isn’t even considered a variable outside of more pronounced preconditions that predispose people to aggress or commit CSA (such as social or mental impairments) and even then, its role as a causal variable is admittedly weak and heavily debated among other meta analyses and studies
-
We’ve seen sex crime statistics go down as pornography, violent or otherwise, became more readily available
-
The proliferation of violent media, specifically the types which visually and literally depict and glorify graphic, extreme violence, both realistic and fantastical has not coincided with increased aggression or assumed up-ticks in violent crime, nor have they harmfully desensitized the public to real-world violence and aggression
-
Much like similar claims made against violent media and LGBT+ culture, it undermines and subverts the free speech principle by exploiting fear, prejudice, hatred, and irrationality to justify censorship and criminalization of fictional child pornography and sex dolls
-
People with pedophilic tastes or desires for this type of fiction are likely already accustomed to what it is they’re consuming, thereby negating the “normalization” effect that consumption claims to have
-
It attempts to split responsibility for sex offenses from the offender and the material they consumed, despite the material not designed to (and arguably being incapable of) inciting of causing said crime, thereby serving as a scapegoat, which undermines just about everything else of importance when deciding and evaluating guilt
-
Pedophilia was de-pathologized in the DSM-5 and ICD-11, delineating pedophilic disorder from a mere pedophilic “sexual orientation/interest”, which is recognized by the DSM-5
-
More “normal” people seem to be caught misbehaving around minors than non-offending pedophiles and MAPs, but that requires more evidence to prove
I want to get a dialog going amongst forum users to try and challenge these false notions. It’s not enough to simply deny it and say that “they don’t normalize real life crimes, they normalize fiction” and compare it to violent media.
We need to challenge this problematic, fallacious, and downright false claim that works of fiction could “normalize” anything other than more fiction.
If there is anything else people would like to add, say, or critique, please do so. I’ll be linking studies to back up the more “empirical” claims I’ve made in a bit.