• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

What are Babyfurs?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
My point of contention is that you wanted to prove that consumption of child pornography didn't make paedophiles more likely to abuse children, but that the paper you cited addresses a different question.

The paper established that it is widely known that consumption of child pornography is a good proxy of liability to abuse children, but that it isn't known whether this relationship is causal. Hence it doesn't address your question.

Instead, the paper investigates the predictive power of factors such as antisocial behaviour and a factor called 'aggregated sex drive', which is the authors' attempt at creating a proxy for sex drive.

Can you cite any research which actually addresses the question which you set yourself?
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
My point of contention is that you wanted to prove that consumption of child pornography didn't make paedophiles more likely to abuse children, but that the paper you cited addresses a different question.

>>more repeating yourself, still no substance at all

What question? It's completely relevant and you can't be much more specific until you find Why Fallowfox Is Wrong, instead.

For the third time (or fourth, I'm losing count) it was relevant evidence to support what I said.

Evidence, as in "something you have failed, and are still failing to provide" and cherry-picking it with fuzzy anecdotes doesn't impress me.

The paper established that it is widely known that consumption of child pornography...

Oh, so IT IS relevant :V

Carry on.

... is a good proxy of liability to abuse children

Wait, stop right there. "Proxy of liability?"

First of all, I think you mean culpability, not liability, but that's semantics and unimportant.

What is important... What the hell is that supposed to mean? :V

but that it isn't known whether this relationship is causal. Hence it doesn't address your question.

I asked a lot of questions, mr. blurry and never-to-the-point :V

Are you still harping on no certain conclusions being made, which I already explained was simply the way Science works?

It doesn't address anything. Again, as I already stated for the [hell, I forget] time, it is evidence which you- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Instead, the paper investigates the predictive power of factors such as antisocial behaviour and a factor called 'aggregated sex drive', which is the authors' attempt at creating a proxy for sex drive.

There's no "proxy" for anything here. It is explained in like.. the first sentence :\

Come on, really?

The part you must have missed said:
Although much is currently known about hypersexuality (in the form of excessive sexual behavior) among sexual offenders, the degree to which hypersexual behavior is linked to paraphilic and especially pedophilic interests in non-forensic populations has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to elucidate the associations between total sexual outlets (TSO) and other sex drive indicators, antisocial behavior, pedophilic interests, and sexual offending behavior in a [...blah, blah, blah]

Can you cite any research which actually addresses the question which you set yourself?

Lol. Lame...
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
If it is relevant, can you explain how it demonstrates that consuming child pornography does not make paedophiles more liable to abuse children?
[this is the correct use of the word 'liable', as in 'more likely to be or do something', by the way. IE 'smokers are liable to develop lung cancers,']

I'm beginning to think that you really did only read the first sentence of the paper you cited, if you think that's the only important bit.
 

scet

Member
I feel like most of the other parts of this conversation are just repeating a lot in a "prove it" "prove it isnt" kind of way

I'm not going to read research links tbh cause it's near impossible to undersand why people do the things they do
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I feel like most of the other parts of this conversation are just repeating a lot in a "prove it" "prove it isnt" kind of way

I'm not going to read research links tbh cause it's near impossible to undersand why people do the things they do

Read the paper and see whether you think it support's ricky's argument. I don't think psychiatry is simply all futile (some of it has definitely been very useful), but even if you do come to the conclusion that there 'isn't the right kind of information in this paper to decide what it shows', then you've found something useful about the paper, haven't you?
 

scet

Member
Read the paper and see whether you think it support's ricky's argument. I don't think psychiatry is simply all futile (some of it has definitely been very useful), but even if you do come to the conclusion that there 'isn't the right kind of information in this paper to decide what it shows', then you've found something useful about the paper, haven't you?

...

*literally said I'm not going to do that*

I mean yeah it's useful to notice patterns but it is mostly pointless if you can't understand the pattern if your trying to change it
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
Sorry guys, but even if you agree on a hypothetical moral stance about kiddy diddlin', it's still illegal and you'll still get in trouble for it. Please keep it to the adults.
 

scet

Member
Sorry guys, but even if you agree on a hypothetical moral stance about kiddy diddlin', it's still illegal and you'll still get in trouble for it. Please keep it to the adults.

That's what this hole conversation is about and no one is saying it's ok, I think we all agree it's pretty bad
 

scet

Member
I think people are saying, it bad to diddlin children so it's bad to diddlin while playing as childern, I think that's what the conflict is
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
@scetI fully agree, every child is unique and should be treated as such. The guardians know him best and should be able to decide if a certain experience at very young age, i'm talking about prepubescent children, won't be detrimental for this particular child. I'm not saying every parent is a good one though. And after hitting puberty I think he can have all the fun he wants. Oh God, I'm nasty.

That would be far too predjudicial to hold weight in a court of law.

There is also the question: when can the child consent in an informed and unpressured way.

This thread is deeply troubling. ._.

For you, perhaps :V

I would have been ready at about 5, but that just is getting into my personal look on physical love and how long iv had that out look. I just meant if I had a male role model in my home that was close to me and wanted to do stuff to me. I would have jumped at the chance and it would have be so nice .... at least to me.

Apparently, the average age of sex in Jamaica is five.

Source: Random Jamaican Dude :V

I feel like most of the other parts of this conversation are just repeating a lot in a "prove it" "prove it isnt" kind of way

Yeah, this is because nobody supporting the contrary brought any more evidence to the table.

@Fallowfox As for the use of the word liable, the entire paper was about it (and proxy makes even less sense):

The results of the present study suggest that the association between hypersexual behaviour as measured by the TSO, sex drive, and contact sexual abusive behaviour in our community sample of men was lower than expected.

If you look at the table, "time spent with pornography consumption (yeah, totally irrelevant) and past convictions involving child sexual abuse had a p-value of .03 where the aggravated antisociality index was .2! :eek:

As sexual preconvictions could overlap with self-reported sexual victimization of children we also calculated an aggregated antisociality index leaving out sexual preconvictions.

Moving on...

That's what this hole conversation is about and no one is saying it's ok, I think we all agree it's pretty bad

I'll admit, if that is the case, I was confused by the first quote above.

I interpreted that as saying it is okay, but only if the child consents to someone who understands what they really mean.

Taking the latter part for granted, testimony would still be far too prejudicial.

The person claiming this was the case would have a strong reason to influence the evidence.
 
Last edited:

Somnium

The Sparklewolf
Banned
Yeah

Also don't read this ether

I would have been ready at about 5, but that just is getting into my personal look on physical love and how long iv had that out look. I just meant if I had a male role model in my home that was close to me and wanted to do stuff to me. I would have jumped at the chance and it would have be so nice .... at least to me.

It'd mean more to me to learn about that stuff from some one I trusted and know loved me as unconstitutionally as my father. Public education hurts that stuff into a horrible experience and I was scared to be physical for a long time, now I'm in a sex less relationship and as I'm learning more about the real meanings of sex I'm really unhappy with not having it.

But this is just my case, one person. I know there are even some people that find sex gross and awful no matter who or what age.

Me I'm just ... a slutty person in gernral, loving everyone like a hippie, like my body is just a body take it, just cause I like you as a friend or family member or something

well, nice to see someone who isn't so against it. I wish more people were like you. Now everyone seems to go ape shit if they just hear a word starting with a p. The mentioned people might choose to express their deep love for children in this rather unconventional way as for example zoophiles do. Why nobody thinks about that? Why is it has to be a child molestation where child gets hurt and is not cared about?
 

scet

Member
I mean at that age I didn't know what it was or how you could but that's my point, kids don't know and that's why you should just not do it

Um like it's like you can open the box if there is a note saying yes in the box, if the note inside the box says no than you can't open the box. You can't see the note before you open the box, so are you going to open that box?

Like just to be safe ... dont, just dont
 

Somnium

The Sparklewolf
Banned
I mean at that age I didn't know what it was or how you could but that's my point, kids don't know and that's why you should just not do it

Um like it's like you can open the box if there is a note saying yes in the box, if the note inside the box says no than you can't open the box. You can't see the note before you open the box, so are you going to open that box?

Like just to be safe ... dont, just dont

oh sorry i got you wrong.. don't worry i won't, it does not interest me
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
@Ricky
The word proxy means 'an indirect metric for another variable'

The aggregated sex drive is a proxy for libido, rather than a measure of how much child pornography they consume.
Consumption of child pornography is an effective proxy for liability to abuse children, a fact that is acknowledged in the paper's conclusion.

The paper argues, among other things, that sex drive isn't an effective proxy of liability to commit abuse.

So the paper you cited doesn't determine whether consumption of child pornography causally increases a paedophile's liability to abuse real children. This fact is acknowledged in the paper's discussion.

well, nice to see someone who isn't so against it. I wish more people were like you. Now everyone seems to go ape shit if they just hear a word starting with a p. The mentioned people might choose to express their deep love for children in this rather unconventional way as for example zoophiles do. Why nobody thinks about that? Why is it has to be a child molestation where child gets hurt and is not cared about?

Prepubescent children are not equipped with sufficient mental faculty to make informed decisions about consent to sexual activities.

Hence any adult performing sexual activities with a child is taking advantage of them and abusing their position of trust as an adult.
 

scet

Member
I still don't understand the point, so are you arguing something along the lines of, if you let adults do anything sexual with ABDL and generate porn of such it will lead to more child molesters?
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
@Ricky
The word proxy means 'an indirect metric for another variable'

I never heard it used this way before.

The aggregated sex drive is a proxy for libido, rather than a measure of how much child pornography they consume.

Dude, first sentence:

In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature providing empirical evidence for a link between hypersexuality and paraphilic interests in sexual offenders

The paper established that it is widely known that consumption of child pornography is a good proxy of liability to abuse children

No it didn't. I already addressed this, CTRL+F for "no shit".

The aggregated sex drive is a proxy for libido, rather than a measure of how much child pornography they consume.
Consumption of child pornography is an effective proxy for liability to abuse children, a fact that is acknowledged in the paper's conclusion.

Is there an echo in here? No, it's just the sound of Fallowfox repeating himself once again :V

The paper argues, among other things, that sex drive isn't an effective proxy of liability to commit abuse.

Echo, echo, echo...

So the paper you cited doesn't determine whether consumption of child pornography causally increases a paedophile's liability to abuse real children. This fact is acknowledged in the paper's discussion.

Casually? They don't do it with a jacket and tie?

Exactly what percentage is "casually"?

I already addressed this as well, CTRL+F for "read the fucking chart".

I still don't understand the point, so are you arguing something along the lines of, if you let adults do anything sexual with ABDL and generate porn of such it will lead to more child molesters?

I think he might have been replying to the post claiming it was okay if the child "consents."
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I'm surprised you've not heard of the word 'proxy' before; it's commonly used in the sciences. The most common proxy people come across in their daily life is 'Body Mass Index' or BMI, which is a proxy for how fat you are.
Here is a simple article detailing some more examples: Proxy (statistics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that you don't know what these common place scientific words mean, do you think this might impair your understanding of what papers from the literature are actually saying?

(also it is causally, not casually, as in 'the removal of the block caused the tower to topple,')
 

Astus

Well Known Foxxo
I think after reading this thread I'm pretty much done with people for a while... children aren't physiologically or mentally able to process what sex is or let alone have any of those actions preformed on them. Those who are supporting this type of abuse onto children are disgusting whatver their intentions are; they are physically and most likely emotionally scarring children in the process. The issue with the pornography is that it's never enough, there comes a point where the body adjusts to the stimulation recieved and it requires more for them to receive the same feeling they had before, the feelings they want. That's when bad things happen, when they lose control of themselves; it'd be better if they just checked themselves into a facility that can help them advert their sexual drive or castrate them so they can't harm any children at least. As someone who is a part of the ABDL community, I wouldn't want to hear about any child who had their innocence taken away, selfishly because most of the ABDLs are trying to replicate that feeling of innocence, as well from the extrinsic standpoint that you are physically and mentally going to harm that child for the rest of your life just to furfil a sexual pleasure for yourself
 

Eirrinn

Demon Lord
I don't mind baby furs, as long as its not sexual and they simply like how cute cubs are that's fine with me, heck I even have a baby version of my fursona Amara.
But it crosses the line when it gets sexual and downright gross. I went to Rainfurrest last year and it was practically ruined for me because of what happened there, and now there is no 2016 con mostly because of it :/
 

Ricky

Well-Known Member
blah, blah, more ad hominem bs...

*yawn...*

I think after reading this thread I'm pretty much done with people for a while... children aren't physiologically or mentally able to process what sex is or let alone have any of those actions preformed on them. Those who are supporting this type of abuse onto children are disgusting whatver their intentions are; they are physically and most likely emotionally scarring children in the process.

You read one comment you disagree with and you're done with people? :V

The issue with the pornography is that it's never enough, there comes a point where the body adjusts to the stimulation recieved and it requires more for them to receive the same feeling they had before, the feelings they want. That's when bad things happen, when they lose control of themselves; it'd be better if they just checked themselves into a facility that can help them advert their sexual drive or castrate them so they can't harm any children at least.

Again, they haven't actually done anything wrong until they act on it.

Also, paedophiles have asked for castration and were actually refused in many cases.

I think *that* is rather silly, but the point I'm trying to make is you can't punish people for thoughts or feelings and they don't necessarily translate to action.

As someone who is a part of the ABDL community, I wouldn't want to hear about any child who had their innocence taken away, selfishly because most of the ABDLs are trying to replicate that feeling of innocence, as well from the extrinsic standpoint that you are physically and mentally going to harm that child for the rest of your life just to furfil a sexual pleasure for yourself

I would hope someone from *any* community would feel the same way >.>
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
@Ricky No really, if you aren't familiar with basic terms in the literature then this probably explains why you got the wrong end of the stick when you read that citation.

I see this a lot (for example, people routinely confusing 'genetic' as in 'was generated' with 'related to the genes'); perhaps papers should use more accessible language or have glossaries of terms in them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top