• zach@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I believe the last time something like this came up, the argument was raised that it normalizes the behavior and leads to escalation, i.e. “they’re just illustrations” “it’s just a doll” to “I’m just taking photos” or “it’s just touching”, this time against actual victims

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Fake kids to real kids is very different than some crazy fucko thinking same-sex marriage would lead to fucking animals. Are you for real?

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Slippery slope fallacy. We know that consumption of real CSAM might increase frustration and lead to pursuit of real crimes. However, we don’t have the same level of evidence for illustrations or sex dolls. It’s a massive blind side in the scientific literature. It’s very hard to study.

      Despite this, the number one risk factor still remains unsupervised access to minors. Regardless of whether the abuser consumes abuse media or not.

      • 5too@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        49 minutes ago

        To my knowledge, there is very little research at all - the programs that would look into whether this might protect or endanger children struggle to get funded, because it’s icky.

        • frongt@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 minutes ago

          And anyone looking into it immediately gets labeled as defending abusers.