I find some parts of this video misleading. Such as the fact that she says that it could be used to groom little kids but honestly for why someone may use it doesn’t (necessarily) mean that the art itself is bad. For example: You can pretty much buy a knife for killing people, that doesn’t mean that the knife itself is bad. Everything can be used to groom little kids nowadays, specially things like social media. Does that make any of that bad? Of course not. The main problem isn’t that social media allows this content, but the lack of parents monitoring what their kids are doing online.
She also makes the argument that claiming “video games cause violence” is different from claiming “lolicon causes CSA” because of “intent”. Naw, this lady’s a loonie. Regurgitating the same God-awful arguments…
I remember this video coming out a couple years ago and posting about it on my Twitter before that got nuked.
It goes without saying that these people who argue against the creation of lolisho art and ‘proshipping’ do not actually understand art, artistic freedom, fantasy, or the psychology of any of it. I’ve examined her Google Drive link which contained a short list of resources/citations, and they’re painfully lacking.
They try so hard to reconcile their desire to censor that which offends them with some reaching, uninformed arguments about psychology and artistic expression, and an overarching reliance on viewpoint and perception to ground their arguments, rather than anything sourced or conclusive. I’ve seen some try to cite sources either sloppily or out-of-context, either because they’re being cited from those who are not credible authorities on the matter. I read some of their arguments about this matter and I’m instantly reminded of the arguments used by sex-negative feminists against the porn industry, or a woman’s right to express herself erotically/sexually, or even the types of arguments used by religious sorts to argue against LGBT-oriented media.
I said before and I’ll say it again: If actual CSAM did NOT increase the child abuse rate, fictional content sure won’t. It has no logical reasons to believe why it would.
These people think that if a pedophile looks at lolicon for 1 hour they will become pro c. Geez.
While I do agree with feminists on some points and I am not an antifeminist, this thing specifically annoys me. I really dislike sex negative views, I find them extremely irracional. “Woooooo look at this drawing with nipless, woooooo look at this pornographic video ”
Like, what’s so bad and oppressive about sex? It’s just nature after all.
Thats just so painful to see. An actual therapist doing this feels like a weaponization of psychology against a certain group. I hope no MAPs ever go to her sessions. She will destroy them.
I once heard a horror story from a MAP on Reddit. He was worried he was a pedophile and sought a therapist. The therapist had treated POCD cases before and explicitly made the promise that she wouldn’t abandon him. Well, she soon realized he was an actual pedophile and admitted that she could not help him. Poor bastard felt absolutely betrayed and said he had a difficult time trusting any therapist after that…
Therapists are just humans with their own emotions, and morals. Becoming a therapist does not magically remove all of your personal opinions especially when there is no 100% guaranteed answer.
There will also never be one since we are talking about psychology.
Although, I will say that you should take the opinion of therapists on matters like these with a grain of salt. They are trained to work with people who have a problem. Regular contact with people who seem to struggle, because of X, Y and Z. This can cause you to have a very heavy bias since you try to refer from experience of helping them.
Problem is you cannot just transfer that knowledge to people who do not struggle with their sexuality.
”