To my understanding, people with this issue use the term to differentiate themselves (i.e. attracted to minors, but haven't acted on those impulses) from those who have acted on said impulses (pedophiles). Given the huge stigma connected to the label, I can perfectly understand why they'd want to make that distinction very clear.

Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

https://www.researchgate.net/...

https://www.wired.com/...

https://virped.or/ g/vpp20240204/ (Feedback from actual MAPs)

To be clear - I'm not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I'm saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.

Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.

https://www.researchgate.net/...

https://www.wired.com/...

https://virped.or/ g/vpp20240204/ (Feedback from actual MAPs)

To be clear - I'm not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I'm saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.

Yes, the legal issues would be a huge can of worms. I'm not advocating for free use of AI CSAM, I'd just like some actual research to be done instead of going with the 'think of the children' kneejerk reaction.

There's some irony to this being posted on aussie.zone, country of a million killer animals.

I've never seen it, but now I want to try it myself.

No argument there.

The Internet is full of Dunning Kruger idiots who don't understand profit maximisation but believe they do.

It's vague enough that you can fit any social issue of your choice in there.

Funny, all the recent press articles I can find from after their updates are positive.

Too big to fail. They're still maximising their profits, just not yours.

Interesting. On one hand, it's insensitive. On the other, actual phishers aren't going to be respecting your feelings either. Anybody who failed this is indeed a cyber risk.

(Obviously the employer shouldn't have been making their lives hell in the first place, but that's an entirely different issue)

Dildos are technically unisex

Meh. There's a strong argument to be made that AI CSAM could reduce harm to actual children. The science isn't in favour of what we'd think is the common sense option.

Edit: To be clear - I'm not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I'm saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.

it's more complicated, expensive, and the people who make those decisions aren't interested in women's pleasure.

Viagra doesn't do any of that for men either. It fixes a physical issue (ED), but doesn't do anything for libido or desire.

Aphrodisiacs are hard, because so much of it is mental.

This was OKCupid before they got bought out by Match.

Usually yeah, but to my understanding this feature was only advertised in their Pro version of the chip. I suspect it got enabled by mistake in the consumer version and nobody really noticed until now.

With fuel stacked on top, yeah that's possible. I was just referring to the idea that somebody lit the table itself on fire.

What's the joke?

If you're working for a company's cybersec, that's your job. And a much preferable one to waiting for an attacker to do it for you.