▲ | akoboldfrying 6 days ago | |||||||
Haven't read this yet, but I'm going to take a wild stab and guess that none of those "current studies" mentioned in the literature review were RCTs, because an RCT would entail deliberately exposing people with a predisposition towards paedophilia to CSAM, and that doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would ever be allowed by an ethics board. If that's the case, then all these studies were observational studies, which lack the ability to infer causality. They can at best hint at directions to pursue for studies that can infer causality. As a concrete example of the way that observational studies can go wrong despite good intentions: It was believed for a long time that paedophiles have lower average IQs than the general population. This was based on the observation that a larger fraction than would be expected of those caught and sentenced for sexual crimes involving children were of low IQ. Of course, a better explanation of this observation is that paedophiles with higher IQs are better at covering their tracks and evading suspicion. | ||||||||
▲ | Saline9515 6 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
There are many publications studying how porn exposure shapes sexuality and our vision of the human body, especially in the young age, but not only. By your logic, CSAM consumers would be "magically" unaffected by viewing this porn subcategory. How convienient. | ||||||||
|