thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
No bio...
User ID: 1081
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Yeah, those views. It was amusing to me how noticeably bad its responses were when I asked it about ethical behavior in situations involving pedophiles compared to situations that didn't. The former were much more terse and obviously special-cased.
I presume the shout-out relates to my advocacy for stronger standards of free speech around these parts?
No, I just thought you'd find it amusing given your views on LLMs. Or did I mix you up with someone?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
(I'm probably going to regret this comment...)
Why are you putting "offending" in scare quotes?
Because what's considered "offending" varies quite wildly and it's not always obvious to me what people mean by it. I've returned a hug from a child I found attractive rather than turning her away. I've gotten aroused by the actions of children around me. Do you consider that "offending"? I don't, but some (many?) people do. Amusingly ChatGPT also does (hello @self_made_human).
Nevertheless, child sex abuse is a real thing, and people aren't stupid or crazy for connecting it with pedophilia.
I don't disagree, but that doesn't give people a blank check in their response to pedophilia and things correlated with it.
Can you explain to me a mechanism by which pedophilia would be a strong predictor of offending again, but not a strong predictor of offending the first time?
Sure. Back when we were on reddit, there was another user who claimed to be a pedophile who theorized that pedophilia is (sometimes?) caused by a disruption in one's sexual development leaving them stuck in a more child-like stage. Hypothetically assuming this is true (I'm not claiming it is, though it does somewhat fit my experience), then it's possible that when and/or how it was disrupted affects how likely a pedophile is to offend, making pedophilia a very strong predictor of offending again, but not necessarily of offending the first time if only a minority of pedophiles are so affected.
I'd be astonished if they weren't. Would you?
I would expect pedophiles to be overrepresented among people who sexually abuse children. I would also expect that a large majority of pedophiles never sexually abuse a child however.
You can probably even argue that, in absolute numbers, more children are sexually abused due to Mom's shitbag-but-not-an-obligate-pedophile boyfriend.
Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out to her shitbag boyfriend out of desperation for his attention when she's not abusing them herself between being dumped by and finding a new one. But of course, women can never be blamed for their contributions to child abuse and their abuse can never truly be sexual anyway...
But this feels like a huge whataboutist evasion. If you're asking me to believe that a man who's attracted to kids is no more likely to try to have sex with one than a random man from the dating pool of single parents - well, that doesn't pass the smell test.
Depends on what you mean by more likely to try I guess. I agree a random pedophile is more likely to desire to have sex with one and seek it out given the opportunity, but I think "a random man from the dating pool of single parents" is far more likely to actually have the opportunity and act on it--I don't think the average pedophile has the necessary social skill nor confidence to. I also think the average pedophile is more likely to see a child as a partner they don't want to hurt rather than just a hole to get off in, which I think would temper offending somewhat. Maybe I'm extrapolating too much from my own feelings though.
My assertion is that there is a direct causal link between pedophilia and trying to have sex with kids.
So basically I'm just deceiving myself thinking I actually care more about not hurting the people I'm attracted to than having sex with them?
Is your quoted article asserting
IIRC, the article itself is more a history and survey of other studies and I don't recall it making any assertions itself. These assertions are coming from others being quoted.
that users of virtual CP are relating to the sexualized minor, not to any unseen attacker? So they're not fantasizing about victimizing children?
Some users in some instances, yes. More generally, I think the assertion is that some people use virtual CP as a means of dealing with their own [childhood] [sexual] trauma in a safer, more controlled context. For example, consider ボクはお姉ちゃんの妹, a story about an older step-sister who defends her effeminate younger brother from bullying for acting like a girl and treats him like a girl, first with tame cross-dressing and then more erotic cross-dressing and sexual activities, with a recurring emphasis on how much she cares for her brother and how comfortable he is with her behavior. Can you imagine how good it feels to read this for a man who experienced similar things from people who didn't care? When he was forced to participate in feminine activities because his sister was too afraid to do them alone and was subsequently bullied for it. When rather than defending him, his relatives only defended femininity because bullying an effeminate boy is okay so long as girls don't feel like they are being denigrated by it. When he felt helpless as older girls (and boys, though that's not particularly relevant to this story) dressed him up, assaulted, and harassed him, treating him like a doll without any concern for his feelings. And despite all the fear and helplessness he was and still is aroused by it.
No, obviously it's just pedophiles evilly fantasizing about victimizing children until they finally get up the nerve to do it to real children. Because that's what we are. Evil people plotting evil things because we're evil. Any defense we give is just DARVO.
Therefore we shouldn't be concerned about their attraction to children?
Therefore we should be cognizant of the fact that there is more to consider than just their threat to children.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
If all you know about a man is that he is attracted to children, it's difficult to quantify his risk of offending.
The response doesn't change even if people know you well. Once they find out you are attracted to kids, it doesn't matter if they've known you to act with integrity for decades. Everything you've ever done is suddenly viewed as an act to lull people into a false sense of security so you can "offend". If you acted "normally" (ie, the way other adults did) around kids, you must have been secretly getting off on it and therefore can't be trusted. If you avoided kids, you must not have been able to control yourself and therefore can't be trusted. People will literally trust known child abusers over you. Being attracted to a kid but never "offending" while trying to be a good if distant person in their life when it happens to intersect your own is apparently more trauma-inducing than repeated physical and emotional abuse. Ask me how I know...
However, we do know that attraction to children is the single strongest predictor of recidivism in known offenders. This is at least suggestive that it matters for first-time offenders as well.
It's the strongest predictor among people who have already offended. This introduces severe selection bias.
What "other predictors" do you mean, and are they as directly causally linked and unambiguous as CP? Or are they vague, all-purpose risk factors, like "lifestyle instability"?
I believe single parents hooking up with new partners is far more directly linked to child abuse than virtual CP consumption. I'll also challenge that there is a direct and unambiguous causal link between virtual CP and child abuse. I'd assert the motivation to consume it is more complicated than you are making it out to be. Consider Lolicon: The Reality of 'Virtual Child Pornography' in Japan (IMAGE & NARRATIVE (MAR 2011), Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 83 – 119, full paper contains NSFW imagery). Toward the end is this section:
Likewise, engaging lolicon images, even when they are pornographic in function or effect, is no simple matter. According to Akagi Akira, in the 1980s, the meaning of lolicon among fans shifted away from older men having sex with younger girls (Akagi 1993: 230). The desire for two-dimensional images was not for girls per se, but rather "girl-ness" (shōjo sei), symbolized by "cuteness" (kawairashisa)(Akagi 1993: 230). The young age and small size of characters were intended to amplify cuteness. Akagi proposes that substitution and mimicry in lolicon function to transform straight sex into parodic forms (Akagi 1993: 230-231). It does not facilitate normal sex, but sexualizes that which is normally not sexual (Shigematsu 1999: 130). Shigematsu adds that the male penis is often absent from lolicon (in compliance with obscenity laws, though not always so in the 1980s), and the replacements for it are objects that do not feel pleasure (Shigematsu 1999: 130). Further, the face of the attacker is often not depicted (Akagi 1993: 232). Akagi sees this as a major distinction from the erotic manga that came before, where there was a sort of "hero attacker" with whom the reader identified. Rather, Akagi provactively suggests that lolicon fans project onto girls: "Lolicon readers do not need a penis for pleasure, but rather they need the ecstasy of the girl. At that time, they identify with the girl, and get caught up in a masochistic pleasure" (Akagi 1993: 232).^30 Itō Gō supports this analysis:
"Readers do not need to emphasize (sic) with the rapist, because they are projecting themselves on the girls who are in horrible situations. It is an abstract desire and does not necessarily connect to real desires. This is something I was told by a lolicon artist, but he said that he is the girl who is raped in his manga. In that he has been raped by society, or by the world. He is in a position of weakness."^31
Recall Kinsella's suggestion that lolicon be understood as men performing the shōjo to come to terms with an unstable gender identity (Kinsella 2006: 81-83). If being a man ceases to promise power, potency and pleasure, it is no longer the privileged subject position. Akagi explains that lolicon is a form of self-expression for those oppressed by the principles of masculine competitive society (Akagi 1993: 232).^32 Lolicon is a rejection of the need to establish oneself as masculine and an identification with the "kindness and love" of the shōjo (Akagi 1993: 233). This interpretation reverses the standard understanding of lolicon as an expression of masculinity to one of femininity. This is, of course, not the only way to approach the wide range of lolicon images, but it certainly highlights the complexity of "pornographic content" and its uses.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Attraction to children is not as strong a predictor of child abuse as other predictors that we don't respond this way to, so I don't find that to be a very convincing argument. This is nothing but dumping on low-status men.
People's response to CP generally makes significantly more sense if you model it as a disgust reaction to the people who'd consume it rather than any true concern for children's wellbeing. The fact that no children were harmed (EDIT:) in this case doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that some creep is actually finding some enjoyment in life.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Seems we mostly disagree on whether to deploy the word "evil" for pretty quotidian human cognitive biases
...
Far more harm is done in the world by those who are mistaken, or haven't thought things through, or who want a little too badly to feel important, than by malice.
Hmmm...I think I still failed to communicate. I think it is evil to believe "The ends justify the means." and actively disregard moral responsibilities to those affected by your actions in pursuit of a goal. I don't think it should be necessarily considered to be malice however, as any harm caused is usually a side effect rather than the ultimate goal. This is how I perceive most feminists' activism in the context of DV. I take it you disagree with at least one of these characterizations?
Plus, it's easier to convince a man that he is wrong than that he is evil.
N=1, but I'd be a lot healthier if I found it easier to be convinced I am wrong than that I am evil.
I am not willing to extend that description to every single feminist who suspects that domestic abuse is rampant and primarily male-on-female, and who therefore resists efforts to change family law in men's favor.
Given the history of domestic violence research (see particularly the section on the harassment of researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry), I do not consider such ignorance to be a very good defense.
My personal understanding of the matter is that this body of evidence and theory is hopelessly biased by the Women Are Wonderful effect, plus all the other cognitive biases that lead us to assign infinite agency to men and none to women
I think it is less biases of agency that are the problem in this case and more biases in the acceptance of harm.
that sufficiently advanced wrongness is indistinguishable from malice. Willful evil, if you will.
I don't think all or possibly even most willfully evil behavior is based in malice. Gross negligence is I think an example of such, and one I think better describes my characterization of feminists in this case. They mostly don't necessarily want to hurt men, they just don't care if men get hurt.
I think a fairer characterization is "stupid and wrong." That seems like the appropriate level of charity to me.
I think that characterization is horribly infantilizing of feminists and is far less charitable than recognizing that they are being willfully evil for two primary reasons. First, doing so is in my mind just another way society doesn't take women seriously. Regardless of my disagreements with them, I don't believe they are stupid. I'd expect the average intelligence of feminists to be above the population average, as it is largely a movement of the well-educated.
Second, I think that this puts "evil" behavior on too high a pedestal, which I don't think is wise. Willfully evil behavior is normal human behavior, not something restricted to evil people. Importantly, how can I expect to recognize and not shy away from acknowledging when I'm being willfully evil to others if I close my eyes to the much easier-to-recognize case of others being willfully evil toward (people like) me? This is perhaps a bastardization of the Catholic teachings I was raised with and turned away from, but I think this ties directly in to the plea in the Lord's prayer to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"--there can be no forgiveness without acknowledgement.
EDIT: Grammar.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
You obviously have experienced a very different set of US restrooms than I have. I have regularly observed women using the men's room in the US and was mildly reprimanded as a child for complaining about feeling uncomfortable because of it.
Feminists believe that the ordinary, non-abusive men you speak of are just sneaky abusers making big sad eyes at the judge and denying their crimes. I believe feminists wrong about this, and that they are doing considerable damage by being stupid and wrong. But they are not as willfully evil as you're portraying them.
This is not simply being stupid and wrong. This is not simply being stupid and wrong. Large prominent feminist organizations actively, willfully supporting and celebrating female abusers while completely erasing male victims if not making them out to be the abusers. They seem to justify any violence by women towards men as self-defense and any violence by men towards women as abusive. If you don't see that as willfully evil, I'm not sure what you would see as such.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
It is completely relevant since "disparate impact" considers discrimination in that sense discrimination in the sense you are referring to.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
10mo ago
Day 2 two planes collided in Haneda, the airport closest to Narita in Tokyo. Everyone was evacuated and survived, though the videos are harrowing. The commercial craft collided with a Coast Guard craft that, from what I understand, was on its way to assist the previously mentioned earthquake.
Everyone on the commercial craft survived. Five of the six crew on the Coast Guard craft died.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
See just about any instance of "sexualization". For some specific examples, see Julia Serano's Why Nice Guys Finish Last and my response at /r/theschism.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Why are some young women apparently trying taboo a 22 year old women dating a 28 year old man when they are also disproportionaly hooking up with older men on the dating apps?
...because the threat of social ruin gives them power over the older men they are hooking up with?
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
No, the stranger part is the biggest reason it's not appealing to me.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Having sex in a nightclub bathroom with an attractive stranger is the highlight of your life;
I realize I'm a bit of an outlier when it comes to sex, but does this really appeal to many straight men? That sounds more like a nightmare to me and I didn't think I was that much of an outlier.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
My cats are about 50/50 with looking at my finger or what I'm pointing at, which isn't that much worse than my dog, so I'm not sure that's completely true.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
I think there's something to that but it's still not that women are the ones discouraging high male sex drives, in that case it would be older men reigning in younger men.
That's just women arranging for the older men to control young men on women's behalf. Women are still ultimately responsible for it.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
I don't see how this follows. If the thing is bad we should want to have less of the thing, even if the improvement we make is not necessarily equally distributed among all impacted groups.
Sure, but I'm not going to waste my time and effort supporting improvements that are only seen by other people--especially people who have related privileges relative to me--unless they demonstrate a willingness to do the same for me. As I said before, people supporting gender equality now have a very high bar to meet in that regard, as they have a very strong history of saying they'll support men too to get my support and then never following through.
I do not think one injustice justifies another. We can, and should, get rid of both.
Empty words. Those pushing for gender equality have proven time and again that they only care about equality when women get the short end of the stick. You need to prove that you will actually get rid of both here rather than stopping once you get the benefits (EDIT:) if you want to convince me to support you.
I don't understand this sentence. No amount of women "show[ing] off" justifies sexual assault or harassment.
The problem is that behavior by men towards women that is perceived as sexual assault or harassment isn't perceived as such when done by women toward men. Men have to "justify" behaviors that women get to just do with no consequence. Women showing off therefore either needs to be more restricted than men doing so or women need to put up with all the behaviors from men that men have to put up with from women.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
The policy is broader than "don't flash your breasts." According to your link it prohibited any content that "deliberately highlighted breasts, buttocks or pelvic region." I have no trouble believing that women were modded for content that men got away with. If a guy did a squat stream that prominently displayed their ass (maybe for form demonstration reasons) would Twitch mod it for sexual content? What if a woman did the same? I have no trouble believing Twitch would mod the woman but not the man. I think there is a pretty straightforward sexist implication to "men are allowed to do this thing but women aren't."
When women start getting treated equivalently to men for sexual assault/harassment, THEN AND ONLY THEN will women deserve "equality" in this regard. You don't get to simultaneously claim the same ability to show off while holding extensive privileges in controlling how people respond to your doing so.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
Congratulations! Your ring-bearer looks very confused by the situation, though very adorable.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
I think some people use the 'one drop rule' for determining whether or not a forum is a white nationalist forum.
thrownaway24e89172
naïve paranoid outcast
11mo ago
But the kid would likely be better off were they to go to a well-regarded private school. We calculate child support based on what the parent can afford, not based merely on what is necessary for the kid to be "fine", because the child is entitled to parental support. Why shouldn't we similarly require parents with the necessary means to not skimp out on their child's education?
The "Ignore the shitbag mom pimping them out..." part of my comment was not intended to be a reflection of your views, but was me blowing steam on (my view of) the general status quo. I apologize for not making that clear.
I have no idea where you got this from my comment. The best match I can come up with is
but even that's a very big stretch. If that is what you were referring to, then yes, let's not pursue this any further because I will very likely not be able to be civil to someone who that egregiously equates "pedophile" and "child molester" while claiming to differentiate them.
What positive expression of those desires would you not see censored?
You don't even need to make that promise. As I said above, I didn't intend to accuse you of believing that and I'm sorry I didn't distinguish my "ranting at the sky" clearly enough.
The best I can promise here is that I will try to be charitable and assume good faith. I cannot guarantee I will succeed or avoid misunderstandings however. Even putting aside the strong emotional response to the topic, there is a large inferential distance to cover.
More options
Context Copy link