Drunk driving is not the right example. A vehicle is basically a weapon and society regulates whether you can use it or not. A computer and some software for personal consumption is much more private. Unless society decides that computer usage must be regulated and needs a license, comparing these 2 is wrong.
Understanding that people deal with some dysfunction or the other is the cost of living in a free society. Everyone struggles with some inner demons. Some much more than others. But we largely trust that they can keep these impulses in control. I don't advocate at all that we must empathise with those having this sort of disorder but we must allow people to deal with these issues privately.
Better, more vigilant policing is the answer. The impulse to stop crime from happening at the point it takes root in someone's mind is just the road to the worst kind of tyranny.
If he plays a race car game while drunk, yes, it’s ok, because is not real.
The same with the computer-generated images that look like children but they are not more real than the cars in the game
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
The mere fact that facial ejaculation is mainstream is good example of this. Inducing taste for CSAM in the mainstream will have devastating consequences as many people won't have the impulse control to refrain from satisfying their fetishes and the victims are powerless.
Or you'll get more people hooked on the worst porn, and those with less impulse control will enact their desires. Desire for Rhino horns is nothing like pedophilia, which leads to arguably one of the worst consequences on society.
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant."
How do you explain the fact that facial ejaculation, which has been invented by porn, is now mainstream, if not due to porn being itself mainstream?
>How do you explain the fact that facial ejaculation, which has been invented by porn, is now mainstream, if not due to porn being itself mainstream?
This was not "invented by porn" and to suggest so is beyond ridiculous.
>Predating the modern age of pornography, facials were described in literature. As an example, the French aristocrat Marquis de Sade wrote about performing facials in his work The 120 Days of Sodom, written in 1785. One passage of the novel reads "… I show them my prick, then what do you suppose I do? I squirt the fuck in their face… That's my passion my child, I have no other… and you're about to behold it.
>"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant."
Most women would be lucky to have a partner that learned a few techniques to please them in bed, it doesn't really matter where it came from. Or they could just have missionary only for the rest of their lives?
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
Porn influences sexual behaviors. The mere fact that facial ejaculation, a practice invented by porn, is now mainstream proves it.
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
It's well known by psychologists working with child molesters that CSAM consumption leads to action. Given that we're talking about child rape, which is probably the most destructive thing for society, even a "should" is enough to take action.
I'm astonished about the level of precaution here. What's next? We have no clear data about what would happen if we offered nuclear ICBM to Zimbabwe, so why not do it?
I'm astonished about the level of precaution here. What's next? We have no clear data about what would happen in the future so why not ban all child psychologists?
if you keep posting the same thing in every reply to everyone in this thread, it won’t help.
we can have a nuanced conversation about how you support making thought-crimes illegal, and how we alreasy know videogames dont cause violence, but somehow because children are involved we have to ban every single thing possible
The comment you replied to was the first comment I made in this thread and the only comment in which I wrote that content, this is my third comment in this thread.
Are you running of arguments? Is it complex? Don't create, own nor distribute CSAM. Why is this thread full of pedo apologists? lol next comment like this I'm going to send money to the EU MPs that want to scan all devices for CP.
Given this is my first comment in this thread and given I've been having forum discussion since pre-WWW usenet the answer is 'No, I am not "running of arguments" '.
> Is it complex?
Your trite CSAM --> pedo's "argument"?
No, that's hardly complex, more overly simplistic and unbacked by actual data.
> Why is this thread full of pedo apologists?
Gosh, is that weak shade directed at myself?
For the record I've no love for pedo's, I've worked with law enforcement to track pedo's, etc.
What I dislike is weak, soft brained, unjoined up thinkings that lack sound data backing .. which this thread is also full of.
Consider, for example, the despicable and depraved Brother Paul Francis Keaney, MBE, ISO (5 October 1888 – 26 February 1954).
Well known paedophile offender, famously gave weight to the expression "Christian Buggers", oversaw a concentration camp dedicated to the perpertration of systematic rape of children, etc.
> It's well known by psychologists working with child molesters that CSAM consumption leads to action.
Do you have a study on that that you can link to?
I feel like so much of what is done in this space is based on what someone thinks would work, not what actually does, making us all waste time and effort. Very much like the "videogames cause violence" argument.
Paedophiles existed before such materials became widely available. Arguably it was more common back then. What's the reason and how to stop it?
> Would you leave your kids for the night at the house of someone who enjoys making AI CSAM?
Probably not, but social ostracization and targeted bans by law (makes AI CSAM = cannot be a teacher) could stand in for a full legal ban.
Less importantly, your smoking in movies analogy is not very applicable because smoking is legal and smoking in movies is legal. Also, there are ads for smoking in public, like at gas stations.
Smoking is an example among other, Cinema has been a great way to advertise things. Would you say that video advertising doesn't work? Exposure to CSAM content can be a trigger in some individuals with predisposition.
FYI, many countries ban smoking in movies and in advertising (which should be the norm), for this exact reason.
For instance, in France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_%C3%89vin
Also, one has to explain to me why the right to own CSAM is so important in their society. Why should the rights of people having a child rape fetish be protected and enforced? How about the rights of the children (and their parents who would like not to live in fear of such individuals).
"Lifetime pornography use was reported by most respondents. After adjusting for age, age at first porn exposure, and current relationship status, the associations between pornography use and sexual behaviors was statistically significant"
Also, "people are born gay" is quack science. If it's true, what else are people "born" into? Yes, sexual suggestion exists, either through social circles, or through culture, or advertising. Alternative sexual behaviors have exploded since porn went mainstream - did we experience a major genetic change?
Anyway, just like you can entice people to smoke by showing Marylin Monroe smoking on the screen, you can entice people to develop an taste for pedophilia by showing them enticing CSAM. And because the consequences of pedophilia are one of the worst things for society, CSAM is forbiden.
Your first article is not so much a "literature review" like you claim as an article claiming that the following theories imply the following conclusion without any data of their own supporting that conclusion. The strongest result was that cultures which normalize violence against women also normalize sexual violence against women. Yes, we can change how people behave towards their objects of sexual interest. We don't change who they are interested in when we do.
Your second article is an example of what I discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37718038. It proves a correlation between being interested in both porn and sexual activity. It does not show causation. The result is exactly what we should expect if people come wired with certain interests, and therefore does not qualify as evidence for or against those theories.
Since porn went mainstream, and acceptance of homosexuality went up, we've seen more openness to teenage experimentation. But do you know what we haven't seen? We haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay in polls. Research on pedophilia is harder to do, but I doubt that has changed either.
In short the thing that, based on available evidence, actually is quack science is your claim that, "Anyway, just like you can entice people to smoke by showing Marylin Monroe smoking on the screen, you can entice people to develop an taste for pedophilia by showing them enticing CSAM."
Of course we have data. You can't brush it off with "correlation =/= causation". Why? Specific practices invented by porn are now mainstream among people who watch porn. This is a prime example of causation. Facial ejaculation didn't exist 100 years ago, even in France, which was Europe's prostitution capital. Now it's mainstream (see study). Why? Porn culture infused the sexual culture.
> we literally are discovering the genetic linkages to being gay
Well you should have read your article, which says: "With multiple gene candidates being linked to homosexuality, it seemed highly unlikely that a single “gay” gene exists."
Intelligence is determined at 80% by genetics, and polygenic. All of this says that there can be a predisposition toward homosexual tendencies ("gay" is related to american homosexual culture and is a prime example of cultural imperialism), however no one is "born" homosexual. Some people with the related genes may end up becoming so, others may mary women, some may just remain alone. This is a strange, calvinist projection on human existence. Would you say that people are born criminal too? There are genes for this as well. Or let's talk about race? So yeah, sorry, this is quack science.
> we've seen more openness to teenage experimentation
This sounds really like what an enabler would say to help sexual predators targeting young people. Teen years are not a good time to "experiment" too much things in sexuality (doesn't mean it's not possible to have sex), as consequences are long-lasting and they are very easily influenced and vulnerable.
> We haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay in polls.
Given that "gay" is the number one thing being advertised and promoted in the US lately, especially at the vulnerable youth, yes that's not very surprising. But I think we're past self-determination now anyway, and more in some kind of weird propaganda. Same goes with transgenderism, with devastating effects (castration of fertile people among others). The US has also currently a mental health crisis, with no sign of stopping, so "data" currently shows that your remedy is either ineffective, or destructive.
You have confirmed my low opinion of your reading skills.
The bit you quoted said that multiple gene candidates are linked to homosexuality. You failed to understand that this implies that we are finding gene linkages. You instead focused on no single gay gene. And then jumped to intelligence, where we ALSO have found no single intelligence gene. Without noticing the flaws in your logic.
You simply ignored the evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by conditions in the womb. Specifically that large families mean greater odds of gay sons. Instead you latch on to a phrase like "teenage experimentation" and accuse me of being a groomer. Which, of course, I am not. I merely happen to know that gay children are more likely to never try to pretend or experiment with being heterosexual. However the age at which teens first have sex has gone later. And the more "liberal sex ed" they get, the later that they start having sex! (Conservatism breeds hypocrisy...)
Your comments about "haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay" suggest you read that sentence as the exact opposite of what I actually said. If I'm wrong, then you're arguing against your own position!
Your article about historical alliances due to legal discrimination notwithstanding, there is little link between pedophilia and homosexuality. As https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep... says, to the extent that pedophiles have adult sexual interests, they are heterosexual. Even if they pursue boys. That certainly was my experience. That is also the case in countries where such abhorrent practices remain, like Afghanistan's "dancing boys".
I've not looked for the statistics, but I'm sure that the figures change for post-pubescent victims. Still, far more heterosexuals than homosexuals focus on porn categories like "barely legal". Not homosexual. Other than the coincidence that homosexuality and pedophilia involve sexual interest in biologically inappropriate targets, there is no particular connection between them. Which is there is no contradiction in my being OK with homosexuality, but not pedophilia.
There appear to be only three things that we agree on. That pedophilia is bad, that the current radical transgender ideology is pushing bad ideas, and that we're both glad that you live away from the US.
> The bit you quoted said that multiple gene candidates are linked to homosexuality. You failed to understand that this implies that we are finding gene linkages. You instead focused on no single gay gene. And then jumped to intelligence, where we ALSO have found no single intelligence gene. Without noticing the flaws in your logic.
It's exactly what I said, intelligence is polygenic (not a too complex word for you I hope). Intelligence is a proxy here for the general mind. Homosexuality tendency is probably the same, which means it's not "on" or "off" as you initially said. You are not "born gay", there is 0 evidence that a one day newborn is homosexual. Epigenetics also probably play a role here. Twins studies, which are the golden standard, are not conclusive on this matter.
Large families have mean different education environment, which could mean different outcomes toward sexuality as well. All of this evidence is non-conclusive.
> And the more "liberal sex ed" they get, the later that they start having sex!
haha this made me giggle - I went through those horrible classes, really borderline traumatising, removed all the fun and erotic aspects of sex yeah. Sad by the way that they don't teach stuff about fertility to women, who now flock into fertilty cliniques in their late 30's.
> Your comments about "haven't seen a significant shift in adults that claim that they are gay" suggest you read that sentence as the exact opposite of what I actually said. If I'm wrong, then you're arguing against your own position!
You're right, I misread, probably because it's false:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-tick...
Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.
> Your article about historical alliances due to legal discrimination notwithstanding, there is little link between pedophilia and homosexuality. As https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/victim-assistance/jwrc/keep... says, to the extent that pedophiles have adult sexual interests, they are heterosexual. Even if they pursue boys. That certainly was my experience. That is also the case in countries where such abhorrent practices remain, like Afghanistan's "dancing boys".
There is an extensive culture of ephebophilia among homosexuals, ancient Greece being one of the oldest recorded example. I do agree however that it's less clear-cut, as many sex offenders are bisexuals too.
> Still, far more heterosexuals than homosexuals focus on porn categories like "barely legal".
There's an extensive supply of specific content, such as "twink" that caters to the homosexual public.
It's exactly what I said, intelligence is polygenic (not a too complex word for you I hope). Intelligence is a proxy here for the general mind. Homosexuality tendency is probably the same, which means it's not "on" or "off" as you initially said. You are not "born gay", there is 0 evidence that a one day newborn is homosexual. Epigenetics also probably play a role here. Twins studies, which are the golden standard, are not conclusive on this matter.
Here is a clue-by-four.
Find where I said that it is "on" or "off". Find where I indicated that I thought people are necessarily "born gay". Find where I indicated that epigenetics can't play a role.
Good luck. I said none of those things. I said nothing indicating that I believe any of those things. And I actually don't believe those things. As should be obvious from the fact that I identify "bisexual" as a category.
You're right, I misread, probably because it's false: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-tick... Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.
The headline figure there is that 7.1% of adults classify themselves as LBGTQ.
https://kinseyinstitute.org/research/publications/historical... gives various historical polls. Hunt in 1974 found that 7% of men had spent at least 3 years in a homosexual relationship, and about 2-3% of men are exclusively homosexual and under 1% of women. Let's see, that's around the same that are LBGTQ today, and about the same percentage that are gay today!
You can compare with other polls over the decades. Depending on how the poll was done and who did it, you get different percentages. But they are all in the same range.
Also, 20% of zoomers identify as LGBT, totally an organic movement only determined by genetics and not the current liberal kulturkampf.
Most zoomers have not actually had sex, and most of the ones that I know have been walking back their trans declarations. So I don't take that figure seriously. Let's wait and see what they say when they are 30.
But isn't "enticing" in the eye of the beholder? Or is it something that is hard-coded into our brains? If former, then your argument is invalid, if latter, then better jail us all.
Evolution has made men excited at the sight of sexual material. The hormonal flow creates a lot of pleasure and a positive reinforcement loop associated with habituation.
This is why porn tends to produce ever more harcore content, to satisfy the ever increasing cravings of the watchers. Just look at a 70's porn movie and the average one today. Much more enticing and hardcore.
As a result, allowing people to develop a taste for CSAM is pandora's box we shouldn't open.
It is not a crime to keep things in your head, however, because there's a strong risk that one with pedo tendencies enact on it, we shouldn't feed this sexual desire.
