4 ms·

It's not evidence of absence. It's anecdotal that pedophiles existed before the internet had any photos of children. Increase of photos of children on the inter

It's not evidence of absence. It's anecdotal that pedophiles existed before the internet had any photos of children. Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. You actually want to look at actual crime statistics. > between 1993 and 2005, the number of sexually abused children dropped 38 percent, while number of children who experienced physical abuse fell by 15 percent and those who were emotionally abused declined by 27 percent. [1] People want to blame pornography and the internet for problems that existed before the internet even existed. And the numbers and facts show the exact opposite: crimes are going down. [1] https://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers.html https://www.livescience.com/17285-child-sexual-abuse-numbers...

kbenson 5y ago
The catholic church is not evidence that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It's evidence that the internet is not the solve source of pedophiles. If pedophiles are created and not only born that way (I suspect there's strong evidence from abuse studies that indicates this is true), then it's possible they can be created from multiple sources. Long-standing sexual abuse of children by the catholic church is not by nature of it's existence evidence the internet does or does not create pedophiles if you believe they can be created from other sources (is the catholic church responsible for every single pedophile?) > Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. That's too strong an assertion. It doesn't "just" mean anything, it indicates some relationship, not necessarily a complete explanation. Personally, I don't know whether I think one way or the other on this, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as people are presenting it. As I understand it, sexual behavior does not always follow the same patterns as other behavior, and people rushing to immediately assume it is or isn't related should probably step back and think a bit more critically, and gather a bit more verified information that directly applies. To me, the fact that so many people are rushing in with arguments that I see as tenuous, if not outright fallacious, points towards an emotional response by people rather than a rational response. Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off, it deserves some respect in how it is responded to. If it's false, it deserves to be clearly and obviously indicated as such with evidence, and if it's NOT, then we should really examine what that means.
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  >Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off I don't think that should be up to 'us' (non-pedophiles) to decide. Arguably, perhaps the Internet doesn't 'create' pedophiles as much as it may help people understand that they are pedophiles, and that society's shaming of them (which, yes, does lead to worse psychological outcomes and increased stress for the afflicted person) has negatively impacted them and forced them to keep quiet about their sexuality. This stigma even prevents them from seeing mental health care providers, for fear that therapists will incorrectly (and perhaps even illegally) report them. I have no opinion that fiction can impact pedophiles and inflame their desires, but I do not think that is a good enough reason to do away with fiction (to make the publisher liable) - the degrees of separation are too high for me to see illegalising fiction as a reasonable and just measure. The idea that someone can be thrown in prison for the mere risk of the following circumstances coalescing: * Creating material that might appeal to some pedophiles * If those pedophiles find the material * If it hits on the appropriate themes to inflame desires (e.g. is it straight fiction? Gay fiction? Is the subject in the fiction the right age? The right appearance?) * If those 'inflamed desires' are processed by the pedophile's brain to relate to the real world, forming a plan of action (let's call this real-desire) * If that real-desire faces no moral or practical impediment to its execution * If the pedophile's impulse control is low enough to execute the real-desire This is an extremely tenuous chain of events, each one relying on the previous event - and most of this chain of events is squarely in the court of the pedophile/potential child abuser, not the author of the fiction, who still merely creates the risk of this chain of events occurring. This is complicated by the fact that we have no idea how many non-offending pedophiles there are, and we know that most child sexual abuse is not perpetrated by strangers, but by family members (i.e. there is a specific target; this is not usually how people relate to porn), and a large portion of that sexual abuse is not even perpetrated by pedophiles. The best tactic to prevent child sexual abuse is to stop assuming all pedophiles are potential rapists, and to stop assuming that the people who consume fiction necessarily find fictional desires reflected in their actual psychology (or vice versa). See Patrick Galbraith on this topic.
  - 5y ago

kbenson 5y ago

The catholic church is not evidence that the internet doesn't create pedophiles. It's evidence that the internet is not the solve source of pedophiles. If pedophiles are created and not only born that way (I suspect there's strong evidence from abuse studies that indicates this is true), then it's possible they can be created from multiple sources. Long-standing sexual abuse of children by the catholic church is not by nature of it's existence evidence the internet does or does not create pedophiles if you believe they can be created from other sources (is the catholic church responsible for every single pedophile?) > Increase of photos of children on the internet just means that more people are using the internet. That's too strong an assertion. It doesn't "just" mean anything, it indicates some relationship, not necessarily a complete explanation. Personally, I don't know whether I think one way or the other on this, but I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as people are presenting it. As I understand it, sexual behavior does not always follow the same patterns as other behavior, and people rushing to immediately assume it is or isn't related should probably step back and think a bit more critically, and gather a bit more verified information that directly applies. To me, the fact that so many people are rushing in with arguments that I see as tenuous, if not outright fallacious, points towards an emotional response by people rather than a rational response. Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off, it deserves some respect in how it is responded to. If it's false, it deserves to be clearly and obviously indicated as such with evidence, and if it's NOT, then we should really examine what that means.

claudiawerner 5y ago
>Given the subject matter, and that if the theory presented is true it's purely negative for all involved, as both the pedophiles created (or made worse) by exposure as well as their potential victims are worse off I don't think that should be up to 'us' (non-pedophiles) to decide. Arguably, perhaps the Internet doesn't 'create' pedophiles as much as it may help people understand that they are pedophiles, and that society's shaming of them (which, yes, does lead to worse psychological outcomes and increased stress for the afflicted person) has negatively impacted them and forced them to keep quiet about their sexuality. This stigma even prevents them from seeing mental health care providers, for fear that therapists will incorrectly (and perhaps even illegally) report them. I have no opinion that fiction can impact pedophiles and inflame their desires, but I do not think that is a good enough reason to do away with fiction (to make the publisher liable) - the degrees of separation are too high for me to see illegalising fiction as a reasonable and just measure. The idea that someone can be thrown in prison for the mere risk of the following circumstances coalescing: * Creating material that might appeal to some pedophiles * If those pedophiles find the material * If it hits on the appropriate themes to inflame desires (e.g. is it straight fiction? Gay fiction? Is the subject in the fiction the right age? The right appearance?) * If those 'inflamed desires' are processed by the pedophile's brain to relate to the real world, forming a plan of action (let's call this real-desire) * If that real-desire faces no moral or practical impediment to its execution * If the pedophile's impulse control is low enough to execute the real-desire This is an extremely tenuous chain of events, each one relying on the previous event - and most of this chain of events is squarely in the court of the pedophile/potential child abuser, not the author of the fiction, who still merely creates the risk of this chain of events occurring. This is complicated by the fact that we have no idea how many non-offending pedophiles there are, and we know that most child sexual abuse is not perpetrated by strangers, but by family members (i.e. there is a specific target; this is not usually how people relate to porn), and a large portion of that sexual abuse is not even perpetrated by pedophiles. The best tactic to prevent child sexual abuse is to stop assuming all pedophiles are potential rapists, and to stop assuming that the people who consume fiction necessarily find fictional desires reflected in their actual psychology (or vice versa). See Patrick Galbraith on this topic.
- 5y ago