> At the very least, this seems like something to approach with extreme caution. Like you, I'm not overly informed on the factual question here, but I don't un

> At the very least, this seems like something to approach with extreme caution. Like you, I'm not overly informed on the factual question here, but I don't understand why you think banning the content is somehow the cautious course of action. The heuristics for which action is the "cautious" one is usually some combination of: a) which outcome is less likely to be harmful b) which outcome is more passive (ie primum non nocere) c) which outcome is more predictable (eg the status quo) It seems to me that bans fail on the first two counts[1] and squeak by on the third. Even this status quo argument is weakened by how new these bans are, and by the many contemporary countries in which fictionalized CP is legal. [1] In the former case, this is based on the practically universal consensus that sexual preferences, even dangerous and deviant ones, are burned deeply into one's psyche and can't simply be ignored through lack of exposure. This view was most famously one of the strongest pillars of the successful iteration of the gay rights movement, and is why we consider conversion therapy to be horrific. One can make the claim that this factual claim only applies to gender preferences, but that seems quite an extraordinary claim.