A South Korean man has been sentenced to jail for using artificial intelligence to generate exploitative images of children, the first case of its kind in the country as courts around the world encounter the use of new technologies in creating abusive sexual content.
For example, Vega and Malamuth (2007) explored the role of pornography in the context of risk factors associated with sexual aggression within a group of male university students. They found that excessive pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression.
This review was unable to demonstrate that there was not a relationship between early exposure to pornography and sexual offending. It also consistently appears that men who sexually offend report less exposure to pornography and that exposure to pornography does not result in more harm being caused to the victim. The review suggests that there is not a consistent relationship between exposure to pornography and offending shortly after exposure.
So a recent meta analysis has not found anything conclusive one way or the other. Operant conditioning does suggest a correlation (watching naked children while masturbating reinforces the neural pathways that link sexual arousal to kids).
I did time for a drug offense and met a lot of sexual offenders. In my state, they’re not allowed to watch porn if they’re on parole.
Anyway, the jury is out on if there is enough correlation between the two. But there’s definitely not evidence that I could find that letting pedophiles masterbate to pictures of children is helpful, as you suggest. Rather those images are simulated or not.
However, I do think “treatment” of pedophilia with generated CP should only be tried after conducting proper research into the actual effectiveness of it (maybe with general sex offenders and regular porn).
Okay. Well this research has been tried with general sex offenders and it’s inconclusive rather it’s helpful or harmful.
Sorry for reading your post suggestion that we try treating pedophiles with AI generated CP as a suggestion that CP would be helpful for pedophiles.
Maybe I could’ve written it more clearly, but I thought it was pretty obvious we shouldn’t try treating pedophiles this way if research shows it doesn’t work.
Sex offenders aren’t allowed to watch porn because the evidence suggests it doesn’t treat the behavior, but encoureges it.
Having a hard time finding the evidence you mention, got a citation? First few articles I saw were actually advising against blanket pornography bans.
So a recent meta analysis has not found anything conclusive one way or the other. Operant conditioning does suggest a correlation (watching naked children while masturbating reinforces the neural pathways that link sexual arousal to kids).
I did time for a drug offense and met a lot of sexual offenders. In my state, they’re not allowed to watch porn if they’re on parole.
Anyway, the jury is out on if there is enough correlation between the two. But there’s definitely not evidence that I could find that letting pedophiles masterbate to pictures of children is helpful, as you suggest. Rather those images are simulated or not.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918302404
I didn’t suggest shit, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks for the citations though.
Okay. Well this research has been tried with general sex offenders and it’s inconclusive rather it’s helpful or harmful.
Sorry for reading your post suggestion that we try treating pedophiles with AI generated CP as a suggestion that CP would be helpful for pedophiles.
Maybe I could’ve written it more clearly, but I thought it was pretty obvious we shouldn’t try treating pedophiles this way if research shows it doesn’t work.
Not my post, dude. Look at the people you are replying to.
Okay my bad. I had assumed you were the person I had originally replied too.