all 80 comments

[–]FailureChampionI pity the tool! 37 points38 points  (67 children)

I wonder who this might be aimed at?

On one hand, it's fucked up that such a pointed policy is being put into effect, as it primarily targets fringe communities, on the other hand, it's far more fucked up that this is even a necessary step because of said fringes.

It shouldn't be necessary to tell people not to sexualize children, let alone not to do it publicly. Should we start a timer to see how long it takes until MFA breaks this rule?

[–]FoetusCorruptusFoetus Christ: The Chadsurrection 19 points20 points  (65 children)

Plenty of groups like "virtuous pedophiles" will say policy like this removes one of the few things they have that keep their impulses in check. I have little sympathy.

[–]neomancr 23 points24 points  (10 children)

That's straight up a threat. Fuck that.

One of the basic qualities of consciousness is the ability to focus.

Even if you were a pedophile and that is something you are born as you should know that nurturing that impulse isn't doing you any good.

It's not different than being a drug addict and joining a community that fantasizes and glorifies drugs.

[–]engeelite 5 points6 points  (9 children)

I might be inclined to agree with you, but there seems to be academic support for what the are saying: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-010-9696-y If simulated child pornography actually keeps children safe, then I would say it should be allowed.

[–]Sorcha16 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I disagree that it should be allowed everywhere sites like Reddit should not have to put up with it.

[–]neomancr 2 points3 points  (7 children)

I'd have to look into the terms. The Rine study was also peer reviewed and anyone can see how that was deliberately rigged to promote the agenda of the author.

Bad science isnt typically out right lying but instead does have the internal consistency to pass peer review as far as the data is concerned, the manipulation lies in the interpretation of the data.

The Rine study for instance deliberately rigged the sample population to ensure that the subjects reporting in were de facto well adjusted individuals by sourcing university students. They even broadened the definition of child abuse to further dilute the sample. Child abuse was defined by any inappropriate sexual exposure including exhibitionism perpetuated on a "child" which was defined as a person under the age of 18.

That meant that 17 year old who saw a penis was treated as a child abuse victim, and this victim was a university student so odds are they are doing fine despite being victimized at 17 by having seen a penis.

It deliberately ignored the fact that a huge percentage of child abuse victims don't make it to university, many end up runaways, in child trafficking rings and or later on just ended up working the streets or porn stars or even dead.

Research Dr John money. A lot of people ate under the impression that science is a priest class fill of only the most virtuous people who couldn't possibly have dishonest intentions.

A sad truth about how the media works is that there's something called the coffee test. If something is too disturbing to read with your morning coffee or simply isn't printed. Thus the child sex trafficking that is rampant in the United States gets no coverage.

Look up the Larry King boy town documentary that was censored. You can find it on YouTube.


There is too much ick factor as it's called to this so it's allowed to happen without any repercussion. I don't honestly believe that excuse... Look at how the media treated Corey Feldman when he came out about the child abuse that occurred routinely in Hollywood. Barbara Walter even tried to shame him into shutting up for fear that it might hurt the media.

[–]aestheticsnafubut that’s not how research works 0 points1 point  (6 children)

To be fair, everyone uses college students because they’re cheap, easy, and generally similar to each other. Drives me nuts but that’s how it is.

I’d be interested in hearing what you think makes the Rine study (not familiar with it) more then just lazy and bad science - seems like you’re trying to indicate that the guy has some ulterior pedo angle instead of just being lazy and stupid.

[–]neomancr 0 points1 point  (5 children)

It's considered the Bible of child abuse research among those who believe in it and alleged to prove that child sexual abuse rarely causes harm.

Do you have a reason for believing that researchers don't have pedo biases? Look into Dr John money.

Scientists are just people. There's no reason to presume they are somehow exemplars of virtue.

[–]aestheticsnafubut that’s not how research works 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Oh I’m not saying that scientists or anyone is a paragon of virtue - I was just wondering if it was necessarily anything beyond shitty research of which there is a lot, especially since you were indicating that the guy himself was pro-pedo.

[–]neomancr 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I think it's apparent that he knew what he was doing. Do you think he was just surprised to discover that "child sex abuse rarely causes harm?"

[–]aestheticsnafubut that’s not how research works 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Having worked with a lot of academics, yeah I can see him just being excited about getting a “sexy” (attention-getting) result, and the benefits of that. Or he could have genuinely thought that seeing a dick at 17 is similar to more severe abuse because he’s an idiot. Or he didn’t even think about the difference because he’s an idiot or asshole, or because his academic environment didn’t care about shit like if your basis makes any fucking sense. Or maybe it was about making himself feel better about abuse he experienced. Or it could have been the result of some petty fight with a peer about methodology. Or he could have been a pedophile.

(From a quick search, it looks like he is very tied to a particular field of sex research, so that is probably a factor. Also why are we letting his co-authors off the hook here?)

I have worked with a lot of people, some of whom are very famous and important, and academics are often extremely narrow-minded and petty to a ridiculous perspective.

Note I’m not saying he’s a good person; he sounds pretty shitty. I was just wondering if we knew he was himself a pedo or just a self-important asshole.

[–]ThuleDragon 4 points5 points  (41 children)

couldn't talking about this attraction possibly make it worse anyways? they should seek help.

[–]ninetrout 3 points4 points  (40 children)

No, actually. What do you think they'll do when they seek help? They'll talk about it and be taught ways to cope with it. Could it be dangerous for pedophiles who haven't acted on their desires to surround themselves with people who have? Absolutely. But if it's just a bunch of people sitting around substituting fantasies for acting? That's a positive thing.

I think the only time it should be interfered with is if there's anything that hints at a real minor being in possible danger. (Which does apply to a lot of incels based on how many of them have sexual things to say about younger siblings.)

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (32 children)

or maybe they could work on killing those fantasies and joining the rest of us in the fertile lands of common decency

[–]ninetrout 1 point2 points  (31 children)

That's generally not how human sexuality works. Just painting with broad strokes here, pretty much you like what you like. Pedophiles have been found to have structural differences in the brain. There are even studies that can show differences between child abusers and pedophiles who have never harmed a child. Treatment for pedophiles is about inhibiting acting on their desires, nothing more.

Edit: a word.

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (30 children)

your brain structure does not change when you abuse a kid, that's fucking nonsense

[–]ninetrout 1 point2 points  (29 children)

It doesn't change /after/ (although your brain can literally physically change after life events that aren't physically damaging like trauma). Non-offenders have been shown to be more developed in inhibitory areas than people who abuse children, whether those people are pedophiles or not (a great many child sex abusers aren't).

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (28 children)

it's not traumatic to be an abuser, and that doesn't prove that their brains changed. it does, however, prove that they're deficient in common decency, which is what I said in my first comment.

[–]ninetrout 1 point2 points  (27 children)

So you're saying if you're born with less common decency, brain-wise, you can change that. But you can't change under other circumstances that you disagree with?

I never said it was traumatic to be an abuser, I was giving an example of post-natal changes in brain makeup that aren't related to physical trauma to the brain. I have trauma from being abused and know quite well that my abusers weren't traumatized by abusing me. What I'm saying is that people can be born to grow into pedophiles, but they aren't necessarily all born to offend, and only offenders should be punished. (This includes anyone who abuses a child, even if that involves no physical contact, and anyone who consumes pornography of real children.) Everyone else should receive therapy to improve inhibition.

[–]GlitterBambinaBlackpill Bullshit Bingo champion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They can pay for their own web hosting and make a private forum. There is no obligation for free service providers like this to give them a platform. While they may or may not be correct in their assertions, they fail to understand that they are not owed anything, least of all owed free space on someone else's servers.

[–]kristallnachte 3 points4 points  (10 children)

While the impulse part may be dumb, non acting pedophiles shouldn't be villified.

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (9 children)

I vilify them for refusing to work on themselves. you can kill a fetish

[–]kristallnachte 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Can you though? Is there any evidence of that?

Can you kill a base attraction?

Do you also believe that you can make people not gay?

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (7 children)

sexuality =/= pedophilia


[–]kristallnachte 1 point2 points  (6 children)

That's avoiding the question. It only remotely addresses one of the questions, and very poorly.

It's a base attraction either way.

The problem isn't with the attraction itself, but how it affects others. Expressing your gay/lesbian attractions is still based on mutually beneficial agreement.

Expressing your pedophilia is not.

That's where the problems arise. The way they work in your brain is essentially the same, and you using little symbols on the internet doesn't really change that.

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (5 children)

[–]kristallnachte 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That literally addresses not a single thing we are talking about.

Not a single thing I said goes against any of the factoids on that site.

Mind actually sticking to the discussion? It isn't that hard.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I asked you?

[–]khazhakwhite knight beta cuck 0 points1 point  (3 children)

yeah it does, you'd just have to read it

how's this? it's conducive to lazy skimming


[–]engeelite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the recent ban of r/deepfakes might have something to do with it.

[–]TiFaeriBible Belt survivor 4 points5 points  (6 children)

No doubt this is from all the articles about incels that have been written lately.

[–]NyoroRhaeven 5 points6 points  (5 children)

The recent ruling is actually more to do with deepfakes. The rule to do with "no revenge porn" and "no sexualising kids" were the same rule until a couple of days ago. They separated them into two because they needed to update the revenge porn rule to include deepfakes.

[–]TiFaeriBible Belt survivor 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Deepfakes? I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with that term.

[–]NyoroRhaeven 5 points6 points  (3 children)

An image recognition algorithm has been developed that takes many images of a person's face (celeb, ex, stalking victim,etc.) as input and then can plant them onto a video or gif, frame by frame. I'm sure you can imagine the two uses of this and neither of them are good. The result ranges from obvious fake to "wow, Taylor swift is getting railed by 3 black guys at once in this video, guys!"

[–]TiFaeriBible Belt survivor 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Oh. Yeah I see so much porn possibility.

Glad to see it won’t be allowed on Reddit.

[–]NyoroRhaeven 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The porn stuff is a major concern but I'm even more worried about the other obvious applications. Stick a politicians face on the rapist in a child abuse video, put someone you don't like in footage of a racist rally, send video of an ex doing heroin to their employer...

[–]TiFaeriBible Belt survivor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow. That’s truly scary shit.

[–]kristallnachte 4 points5 points  (1 child)

How does this apply to something like discussing "Lolita" or a minor telling a story of their first sexual encounter?

Or an adult telling a story of their first sexual encounter as a minor?

[–]nonbinaryunicorn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When discussing Lolita and works akin to it, I imagine that the more scholarly approach and lack of sexualization by the people talking about it will keep it safe. But if someone started fantasizing about their own Lolita, then the thread would be locked.

As for discussions on personal experiences, it can go grey real fast. I'd personally be more comfortable if people who are currently minors don't explicitly discuss their sexual encounters, but sometimes there may be a need for it. It'll probably be a case by case for this sort of thing.

[–]warsie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

banning loli hentai

seems like an Insta DOW there

[–]GlitterBambinaBlackpill Bullshit Bingo champion 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Interesting. That'll piss off a few subs, including a couple of the mostly-inhabited-by-incels subs.

Have they started sobbing and whining about it yet?

[–]Commander_NuggetMaybe one of these days I will come up with something[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont think they know about it yet. I havent seen it mentioned.

[–]quantumphilisp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the melody nelson album by Serge Gainsbourgh is banned from reddit ? Sad because it was good but fuck was it creepy