Sadly there doesn’t seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it’s super controversial to begin with.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.
(mind you it’s important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn’t even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they’re real or drawn, cannot consent).
On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by “disarming” paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it’s actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won’t be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they’ll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.
Again the problem is we don’t have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn’t be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another…
And of course the moment one tries to debate for “on the other hand”, that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they’re literally campaigning for the legalisation of children’s sexualisation in their specific way… which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.
It’s true, but this Is a problem that we as a society need to address, prevention is key, we owe it to the victims to do everything in our power to minimize the risks
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm
Personally I think in a free society something should be legal by default, unless it is proven to cause harm, not the other way around like you suggest.
that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so…
And I think this kind of mindset is poison to democracy
it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.
By your logic, people shouldn’t play Call of Duty either because it enables the core behavior of shooting people with guns to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a video game”.
By your logic, any movie or book depicting any illegal act shouldn’t exist because it would “enable the core behavior to be socially acceptable”.
Sadly there doesn’t seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it’s super controversial to begin with.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.
(mind you it’s important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn’t even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they’re real or drawn, cannot consent).
On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by “disarming” paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it’s actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won’t be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they’ll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.
Again the problem is we don’t have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn’t be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another…
And of course the moment one tries to debate for “on the other hand”, that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they’re literally campaigning for the legalisation of children’s sexualisation in their specific way… which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.
It’s true, but this Is a problem that we as a society need to address, prevention is key, we owe it to the victims to do everything in our power to minimize the risks
Personally I think in a free society something should be legal by default, unless it is proven to cause harm, not the other way around like you suggest.
And I think this kind of mindset is poison to democracy
Okay, repeat after me:
👏 SEXUALISING 👏 CHILDREN 👏 CAUSES 👏 HARM 👏
It’s that simple.
and no, naming a mental illness (paedophilia) what it is isn’t “poison to democracy”.
By your logic, people shouldn’t play Call of Duty either because it enables the core behavior of shooting people with guns to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a video game”.
By your logic, any movie or book depicting any illegal act shouldn’t exist because it would “enable the core behavior to be socially acceptable”.
Sorry, that one doesn’t hold water for me.