7 ms·

I would welcome some links to what you've read on this topic if you're willing. I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant

I would welcome some links to what you've read on this topic if you're willing. I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information. Based on what I've read, I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them, or that sexualized content featuring children is consumed by people who do not fantasize about raping children. As far as the blame, I'm comfortable blaming the publisher, too. There's a lot to abhor about someone who would choose to make money by sexualizing children for the entertainment of others.

falcolas 6y ago
If you're asking for citations, you may wish to also provide them yourself. Otherwise it's merely using heresay and "Think of the children" brands of moralization to push your own morals onto others (other countries, in this instance).
- cforrester 6y ago
  I'm not trying to convince you or win imaginary victories. If they're interested in sharing information, I'm willing to read it. Otherwise, I will stick with the opinion I've formed based on what I've already read from relevant experts over the years.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Then, we appear to be done having a conversation. Have a great day!
    - cforrester 6y ago
      Seems that way, but I'm glad I could offer a dissenting opinion; ending child sexual abuse is a topic of particular importance to me.
- simion314 6y ago
  Not the parent com mentor, but your argument is similar to the one where rock music and violent video games were blamed to cause violence. I don't know the show mentioned but in general would be a good idea not to block legal material because someone thinks it is not safe. There might be a correlation between some groups that consume X and some ill people. The reason I intervened in this debate is that I listen to rock music and people that listen to rock were always accused of bad things by idiots without any proof that there is a causation, many people got beaten or killed because of this so I am really hopping we learned a lesson that maybe we should prove that something is bad.
  - cforrester 6y ago
    These are dissimilar due to the pathological nature of child pornography consumption. Consider instead if you had a true compulsion to commit acts of violence. I'm not so sure a psychologist would give you the all-clear to consume media which feeds into that compulsion, even if it would be fine for a mentally sound person. That's the sticking point here: there is no mentally healthy market for child sexual abuse.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >Consider instead if you had a true compulsion to commit acts of violence. I'm not so sure a psychologist would give you the all-clear to consume media which feeds into that compulsion, even if it would be fine for a mentally sound person. What do you mean? I should present someone an medical document that allows me to play a video game with violence, and a different medical document for watching adult content? If that show is promoting child abuse then there should be a law that applies, if is just some art that some people don't like then we should make sure we don't cross a line, next you will have to censor Game of Thrones the TV series and for sure the books.
      - cforrester 6y ago
        I'm saying that violent media is fine for general consumption because the typical consumer is not prone to acts of violence, and the fantasy they are engaging in is temporary. The same is not true of child sexual abuse, where the typical consumer does have a mental illness that compels them to sexualize children.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information. I'm not talking about the psychological point of view, I'm talking about the cultural anthropological point of view. For the psychological point of view, you're better off looking at the effects of porn on its consumers, and to what extent its consumers export the beliefs. As far as I know, it's a small proportion, and not the typical consumer. See Hald and Malamuth's work for that. Also see work on fiction-communities, such as studies on fanfiction users. These also tend to be cultural-anthropological point of views. I am not aware of any empirical psychological study on the intersection between fiction (2D or 1D, that is) porn and pedophilia. Taylor & Kohut note that porn effects research is a shaky science with a variety of methodological flaws. Studies on pedophiles are even more unreliable, since they mostly concern those who have either (i) already abused a child or (ii) already been found in possession of real child pornography. See a chapter in Gary Young's book, The Gamer's Dilemma for a depth-discussion of the empirical status of a hypothetical link between virtual CP and pedophilia. I don't have a link on hand, but Galbraith's article in Image and Narrative entitled "Lolicon: The reality of 'virtual child pornography in Japan" is a study of the phenomenon and its fans. His doctoral thesis also includes fieldwork in Japan with fan communities. As far as I know, there is no empirical psychological study which confirms or denies that the majority of these fans are pedophiles, or that they feel the same way about 3D children as they do about 2D children. The best resources we have are twofold: how do people understand fiction? And how do fiction-oriented communities guard interpretations of fiction? Galbraith sets out to provide answers to these questions. >I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them I don't think you have reason to believe the converse, either; at least Galbraith's work provides a hint (even if a weak one) against your conclusion. You may also have reason to believe based on how BDSM practitioners and enjoyers interact with their own pornography; for instance, how it has been studied that women with rape kinks do not themselves wish to be raped in real life, or how most people navigate pornography, in particular heinous or non-consensual acts. Incest pornography and furry pornography are interesting points to consider here. We also have some orthogonal evidence from video games and lasting aggressive attitudes outside lab settings - as far as I know, consistently fail to show persistence. Additionally, the rate of sexual assault does not even correlate with the rise in consumption of pornography in general. I think there is a stronger reason to believe that even if there are negative effects from real-life porn, that fictional porn in which reality itself is bent, with immense scapes of fantasy and wonder, grotesque bodies, unreasonable attitudes, twisted scenarios, and strong elements of parody will have less of an effect, or even no effect.

falcolas 6y ago

If you're asking for citations, you may wish to also provide them yourself. Otherwise it's merely using heresay and "Think of the children" brands of moralization to push your own morals onto others (other countries, in this instance).

cforrester 6y ago
I'm not trying to convince you or win imaginary victories. If they're interested in sharing information, I'm willing to read it. Otherwise, I will stick with the opinion I've formed based on what I've already read from relevant experts over the years.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Then, we appear to be done having a conversation. Have a great day!
  - cforrester 6y ago
    Seems that way, but I'm glad I could offer a dissenting opinion; ending child sexual abuse is a topic of particular importance to me.
simion314 6y ago
Not the parent com mentor, but your argument is similar to the one where rock music and violent video games were blamed to cause violence. I don't know the show mentioned but in general would be a good idea not to block legal material because someone thinks it is not safe. There might be a correlation between some groups that consume X and some ill people. The reason I intervened in this debate is that I listen to rock music and people that listen to rock were always accused of bad things by idiots without any proof that there is a causation, many people got beaten or killed because of this so I am really hopping we learned a lesson that maybe we should prove that something is bad.
- cforrester 6y ago
  These are dissimilar due to the pathological nature of child pornography consumption. Consider instead if you had a true compulsion to commit acts of violence. I'm not so sure a psychologist would give you the all-clear to consume media which feeds into that compulsion, even if it would be fine for a mentally sound person. That's the sticking point here: there is no mentally healthy market for child sexual abuse.
  - simion314 6y ago
    >Consider instead if you had a true compulsion to commit acts of violence. I'm not so sure a psychologist would give you the all-clear to consume media which feeds into that compulsion, even if it would be fine for a mentally sound person. What do you mean? I should present someone an medical document that allows me to play a video game with violence, and a different medical document for watching adult content? If that show is promoting child abuse then there should be a law that applies, if is just some art that some people don't like then we should make sure we don't cross a line, next you will have to censor Game of Thrones the TV series and for sure the books.
    - cforrester 6y ago
      I'm saying that violent media is fine for general consumption because the typical consumer is not prone to acts of violence, and the fantasy they are engaging in is temporary. The same is not true of child sexual abuse, where the typical consumer does have a mental illness that compels them to sexualize children.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information. I'm not talking about the psychological point of view, I'm talking about the cultural anthropological point of view. For the psychological point of view, you're better off looking at the effects of porn on its consumers, and to what extent its consumers export the beliefs. As far as I know, it's a small proportion, and not the typical consumer. See Hald and Malamuth's work for that. Also see work on fiction-communities, such as studies on fanfiction users. These also tend to be cultural-anthropological point of views. I am not aware of any empirical psychological study on the intersection between fiction (2D or 1D, that is) porn and pedophilia. Taylor & Kohut note that porn effects research is a shaky science with a variety of methodological flaws. Studies on pedophiles are even more unreliable, since they mostly concern those who have either (i) already abused a child or (ii) already been found in possession of real child pornography. See a chapter in Gary Young's book, The Gamer's Dilemma for a depth-discussion of the empirical status of a hypothetical link between virtual CP and pedophilia. I don't have a link on hand, but Galbraith's article in Image and Narrative entitled "Lolicon: The reality of 'virtual child pornography in Japan" is a study of the phenomenon and its fans. His doctoral thesis also includes fieldwork in Japan with fan communities. As far as I know, there is no empirical psychological study which confirms or denies that the majority of these fans are pedophiles, or that they feel the same way about 3D children as they do about 2D children. The best resources we have are twofold: how do people understand fiction? And how do fiction-oriented communities guard interpretations of fiction? Galbraith sets out to provide answers to these questions. >I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them I don't think you have reason to believe the converse, either; at least Galbraith's work provides a hint (even if a weak one) against your conclusion. You may also have reason to believe based on how BDSM practitioners and enjoyers interact with their own pornography; for instance, how it has been studied that women with rape kinks do not themselves wish to be raped in real life, or how most people navigate pornography, in particular heinous or non-consensual acts. Incest pornography and furry pornography are interesting points to consider here. We also have some orthogonal evidence from video games and lasting aggressive attitudes outside lab settings - as far as I know, consistently fail to show persistence. Additionally, the rate of sexual assault does not even correlate with the rise in consumption of pornography in general. I think there is a stronger reason to believe that even if there are negative effects from real-life porn, that fictional porn in which reality itself is bent, with immense scapes of fantasy and wonder, grotesque bodies, unreasonable attitudes, twisted scenarios, and strong elements of parody will have less of an effect, or even no effect.