The first thing people should know about me is – I'm a pdf paraphile in therapy. Minors are not prohibited from entering, however, I have a BIG request not to try to interact with me personally or ask me about my fetishes or similar shit, especially if you try to send me darkships or kodocon, I'll ban you for that. I'm open to questions regarding my therapy and paraphilia, but please don't overstep the line.
Based on my anti-contact stance, I hold:
• Anti-ship views, including a ban on virtual CSAM, the romanticization/normalization of pedo, and other forms of violence.
• Anti-radqueer views, especially opposing (neo)xenosatanists.
• I believe that an obsession with virtual CSAM and pedo darkships that romanticize pedophilia harms paraphiles.
• Overall, I am against pro-contact pedophiles, whether romantically or sexually, it's terrible shit either way.
Based on my views, I do not welcome those who:
• Hold proship positions, normalize the romanticization of violence (especially pedo, as it directly concerns me).
• Hold radqueer positions or support them, is a pro-contact paraphiliac from the big three or supports it.
• Exhibit racism/nationalism/sexism/queerphobia, and so on.
• Are fans of "prostasia"
(Also, I don't live in a country where English is spoken, so I'm writing through a translator. I apologize in advance for any errors in the texts I write.)
Hot take : transage feels like a dog whistle for age play... Correct me if I'm wrong.
I could say some are but some aren't, some of them could be agere which is sort of a healthy coping mechanism (correct me too if I'm wrong okay) due to traumatic childhood, although, if said user doesn't even have childhood trauma or is transitioning to an older age then.. It kind of is? Basically I'm a 40/60 with agreeing and not
Basically, it depends on the person, I don't fully support transage really but I do respect agere
Age play cannot be a way to overcome difficulties, agere itself without vulgarity - yes, this is a typical coping mechanism, but when sexualization is added to this, then we either say About a pedophile, or a person who has fetishes that border on pedophilia and regression, and there's a separate term for the arousal that comes from imagining oneself as a child: autopedophilia. Yes, this MAYBE not be related to pedophilia, but some of these abdl age players are real pedophiles. Prostasia also tried to portray this as a good way for pedophiles to cope (no, it is not good). Not only are these people there, but they also sexualize children's things and behavior, literally reproducing pedophilic scenarios and getting excited by it, and in my opinion, This is also important, even if not all of these people are pedophiles who are aggravating their inclinations.
Can someone explain to me why proshippers started to classify random people who are against misogyny as antis? Now, in order to be against proshippers, you just have to be against misogyny, or what?
Судя по всему, прошипперы отнесли себя к женоненавистникам.
saying you hate all zoophiles, pedophiles, and necrophiles is ableism btw! As they are mental disorders that require therapy to get rid of. Hope this helps <33
Hating on harmful paraphiles who do cause harm isn't ableist, but hating on people with REAL mental disorders when they're trying to heal and grow as a person is ableist!!
Saying this as a recovered zoophile and necrophile!
It's not hating when I'm genuinely saying they need to go to a mental institution and get help. I'm in FULL support of paraphiles recovering but I can still find it weird and not wanna interact with them while still being in support of them recovering. There's nothing wrong with that. And not to mention saying "hope this helps" is cringe and immature you sound dumb asf I'm happy you are recovered but me not wanting to interact with unrecovered paraphiles is not a bad thing. Fuck off loser and stop picking a fight for no reason.
I've already repeated for the millionth time that the big three are not disorders, it only becomes a disorder if a person experiences severe distress or a person experiences a desire to commit a crime No one will give you any diagnosis just for having a attraction. Even if you do have this disorder, normalizing it as "not dangerous" is harmful to the paraphiles themselves and prevents them from seeking help, After all, when they don't perceive their disorder as harmful or dangerous in itself, they lack the motivation to seek therapy. Furthermore, this is often a sign of ego syntonia. It's as if people suddenly started telling us that some extreme form of sadism with a touch of biastophilia is not dangerous and that people with it cannot be identified as dangerous because it is ableism. Of course it's fucking dangerous, we're talking about a person who has an urge to torture people, it's normal to be "against" them, you're not against the person as such, you're against his deviation and its normalization, because it in itself signifies an attraction to causing harm. This cannot be compared to any schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or anything else, because all these disorders do not mean that a person has a desire to cause harm. Considering a phenomenon that harms children and ruins their lives as dangerous is not ableism, it is a healthy risk assessment.
My God, bro, just go get treatment, no one is discriminating against you, because there is nothing to discriminate against here. The pro para community is very strange and I say this as a paraphiliac in therapy.
I mean this in genuine way, but how are you against pro shipping (an ideology based around being able to separate fiction from reality) and you still like horror? I thought that you believe that apparently what you like in media represents your morality in real life so therefore do you condone violence?
so! great question actually. i genuinely wish proshippers would leave me alone but i guess yall keep coming back lmao.
i DO believe it’s important to be able to separate fiction from reality, it’s a very important skill. i DONT believe there should be sexualization of trauma, abuse, or assault.
i don’t believe the media you enjoy represents what you like in real life in most cases, horror is a very wide spread genre.
however, i do believe if you push abusive relationships and whatnot onto characters, and continuously feed into it like “oh he rapes her so good” or whatever (something i’ve actually seen) it’s unhealthy. espically whenever i’ve seen CHILDREN in these communities having adults willfully interact with them.
not to mention, everything has to be taken in with a level of moderation. i can’t watch horror all the time because it will scare me, and effect my mood. i think the same for toxic dynamics.
i don’t mind people trying to show abusive relationships in media or using characters to cope with their own. i don’t like when people are taking trauma millions go through (and many proshippers THEMSELVES haven’t gone through) and making it seem like it is to be desired.
now i’m begging yall to leave me alone. i have a job and everytime one of yall interact with me it makes me #anxious
My God, this "you're watching horror movies!!" argument is a hundred years old and everyone has already explained its inconsistency 100 times Does this person have nothing to criticize or is he deliberately ignoring all explanations? This is one of the most annoying traits they have and it is called narrow-mindedness.
Yes, the characters and the scenarios they're in are fictional, but the chemical surge in your brain from frequent exposure and/or sexual gratification derived from viewing that stuff is very much real.
Your reward center can't tell the difference between what's fictional and what's not. It doesn't go "oh, this child is not real, I'd better turn of the chemical reactions!" It just gets bombarded with a crap-ton of feel-good chemicals and associates that goodness with whatever stimulus caused the arousal.
If you consistently view content of, for example, children being sexualized, where that pedophilia is painted as acceptable and enjoyed, you are conditioning an arousal response to children and/or childlike characteristics.
You can go on and on about how you're immune and fiction can't affect you, but you aren't. Psychology says so;
The sexual script approach has been widely used in the literature to examine the relationship between pornography consumption and the endorsement of specific sexual attitudes and behaviors (Wright et al., 2022).
The 3AM Theory (Wright, 2011) provides further insight into this relationship by suggesting that individuals acquire new behavioral scripts through media exposure (Acquisition). These scripts can later be triggered by similar media content (Activation) and applied in real-life situations (Application). According to this model, pornography provides consumers with sexual scripts where violence is depicted as normal, acceptable, and even enjoyable.
The activation of such scripts is influenced by content-related factors (e.g., attractiveness), individual characteristics (e.g., gender, motivations), situational factors (e.g., sexual arousal), and the accessibility of the script (e.g., vividness). The application of these scripts is further influenced by beliefs and moral standards. If a script conflicts with internal moral values, it may be suppressed (Wright, 2011).
The normalization of violent sexual behaviors in widely consumed media, such as pornography, contributes to the justification of violence during sexual encounters, shaping societal views on acceptable sexual practices.
Source here for the above two.
"Dark romance novels promote and romanticize abuse, illegal activity and a lack of consent. The novels have real-world implications and should not be dismissed just because they are fiction."
Source
Psychological research heavily links the consumption of media that glamorizes sexual assault to an increase in Rape Myth Acceptance. These myths are false cultural beliefs that excuse perpetrators and blame victims.
Source
2. "Fiction doesn't affect reality!"
Where did this narrative of "fiction doesn't affect reality" even come from? There are multiple real life examples that show the opposite.
Jaws is a fictional movie. Yet it lead caused a massive, wide-spread panic surrounding sharks and their "potential for bloodlust", leading to the overhunting of millions of sharks, almost to the point of near-extinction.
Minstrel shows were fictional depictions of black people, yet they managed to influence the perception of us as "stupid, violent and sexually immoral". Stereotypes we still struggle to shake to this day.
Media often presents manipulative relationship dynamics as evidence of deep, passionate love rather than abuse.
Stories like “Twilight” or “Fifty Shades” present controlling, possessive behavior as romantic devotion. Stalking becomes “persistent courtship,” isolation becomes “wanting to spend all our time together,” and manipulation becomes “caring so much that boundaries don’t matter.”
Romanticized portrayals can teach audiences that controlling behavior is normal or desirable in relationships. Dramatic portrayals can make people miss subtle real-world manipulation.
Source for the above two
A study published by Oxford University Press, called "Fantasy and Reality: What is the truth?" states;
When I discuss the effects of exposure to mass media with various audiences, one of the comments I hear most often is that anyone old enough to “know the difference between fantasy and reality” is not affected by media content. In other words, fictional stories do not influence us because we “know they are not real.” This fantasy/ reality argument represents a major misunderstanding of the psychology of the media…
An article published in association with the American Academy Of Political and Social Sciences, called "The Impact of Factual versus Fictional Media Portrayals on Cultural Stereotypes" states;
Sociological research suggests that human minds are hardwired to first accept everything we comprehend as true, and only later exert the mental energy to evaluate and reject what is false. Because fiction bypasses our natural skepticism, it serves as one of the most potent forces shaping human culture, law, and empathy.
3. "I use it to process my trauma!"
That behavior is known as "reenacting" your trauma. It does not help.
In general, reenactments are an unconscious attempt to reconcile, reframe, or repair a trauma that occurred in childhood. Sexual reenactments are no different. Most sexual reenactments originate due to childhood sexual abuse or sexual assault in adolescence or adulthood. Although not every former victim of sexual violence will have a need to reenact their trauma, many do. This is because most sexual trauma goes unprocessed. Most sexual abuse victims don’t talk about it due to feelings of shame and the fear that they will not be believed. Many try to put it in the past the way friends and family encourage them to do. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work, and they end up reenacting the abuse in some way. As it is with other forms of abuse, typically, former victims tend to either reenact their trauma by continuing to be victimized or by becoming abusive.
Source
Ongoing reenactments are a reflection that a patient is continuing to act in stuck and rigidified ways. In addition, reenactments often lead to revictimization and related feelings of shame, helplessness, and hopelessness. Consequently, an important goal of treatment is facilitating an understanding and control of reenactments. Reenactments are caused in part by powerful unconscious forces that must eventually be verbalized and understood. Thus, in order to address reenactments and to break their repetitiveness, the therapist should help the individual to understand why they occur. However, before proceeding into this phase of treatment and exploring past traumatic relationships and experiences, the therapist must first have achieved a strong and solid therapeutic alliance with the patient. In addition, the patient's safety must be firmly established, and any acute problem areas, such as chemical abuse problems or ongoing self-destructive behavior, need to be stabilized. Once these issues have been resolved, exploratory therapy may begin.
Source
It is a maladaptive coping strategy which functions much like a band aid on a bullet wound.
Using sexual content to cope can reinforce traumatic neural pathways or lead to an escalation in the intensity of content needed to achieve the same numbing effect, potentially recreating aspects of the trauma.
You are not healing. You are numbing yourself, and you think that because you don't feel anything you are fine. This is not fine.
Experts do recommend interacting with the cause of your trauma, but not through violent pornographic material. Experts recommend addressing the root causes of the trauma through trauma-focused therapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), or Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) rather than relying on sexual behaviors, which are viewed as symptoms of unresolved distress rather than solutions.
4. "Anti-ship is pro-censorship!"
According to Marriam Webster, the act of censoring is defined as;
Let me be clear when I say this;
Anti-shippers do not want these topics to be removed from media as a whole.
There are many tasteful ways that these topics can be explored in a narrative which can make for great storytelling and help victims feel represented.
All we want is for these topics to be taken seriously, and not portrayed as something good or acceptable.
5. "Anti-shippers are puritans!"
It's honestly so funny to see y'all misuse that word all the time.
Actual Puritans are against sex being in media as a whole, whether it's vanilla or not.
Actual Puritans are religious fanatics who believe a parasocial relationship with god is the only means of salvation from sin.
Anti-shippers don't want that. Anti-shippers want you to stop wanking it to written/drawn child porn.
Anti-shippers do not want sex to be entirely removed from any piece of media.
So we do not meet the dictionary definition or historical characteristics of actual Puritans and, therefore, cannot correctly be referred to as Puritanical.
Do your research before you go name-calling.
6. "Anti-shippers are fascist!"
What exactly relates fascism with anti-shipping?
Fascism is the belief that your nation and/or race are above all others. How does that correlate with being against the romanticization of abuse?
7. "Anti-shippers are perpetuating purity culture!"
Again with the misused terms 🤦🏽♀️
8. "Don't like, don't read!"
Is just another form of anti-intellectualism. The fandom equivalent of "it's not that deep". If you don't want to be criticized, then don't post it.
9. "Video Games make you violent hur de hur!"
Video game violence doesn't hijack your dopamine pathways the way sexual content does.
The sheer flood of positive chemicals released during sexual gratification can be accurately compared to doing hard drugs - the only difference is that hard drugs prolong the chemical flood to unnatural lengths.
Video game violence, on the other hand, simply reduces emotional and violent impulse control. It doesn't necessarily "make you violent", it just shortens your fuse.
source
Violent sexual content is a completely different ball game. And according to the studies provided above, it does, indeed affect you negatively.
10. "They're just pixels, we're not hurting anyone!"
Sure, they are just pixels. But that's how it all starts.
It's not the fictional characters we're worried about - they're fictional, after all - its the consumers of that content.
Pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia and the like are paraphilic disorders.
A paraphilia is defined as;
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition; DSM-5), paraphilias are defined as any “intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physiologically mature, consenting human partners”
Not all paraphilias are bad, they only become bad when they involve harming others (i.e. pedophiles harming children, zoophiles harming animals). Then, it is known as a paraphilic disorder.
An article on Paraphilia published on MD Searchlight says;
These types of disorders often lead to harming others, which can result in legal problems. This fear of getting into trouble with the law can discourage these individuals from seeking help. Generally, those who do get professional help are often required to do so by law, or persuaded by their family, friends, or partners.
An article published by Psychology Today, on Paraphilias, says;
Behaviorists suggest that paraphilias begin through a process of conditioning: Nonsexual things can become sexually arousing if they are repeatedly associated with pleasurable sexual activity.
The process of encouraging a paraphilia by repeatedly viewing or masturbating to related content is called "habituation".
And, in the context of harmful paraphilias, refers to a behavioral escalation where the individual becomes desensitized to the initial stimulus, leading to an increased need for stimulation or more extreme behaviors to achieve the same level of sexual arousal.
Read up on "Drug Habituation", which is very similar.
Eventually, jerking off isn't going to be enough.
Eventually, fictional sexual material of children and animals are not going to be enough.
The thing about paraphilias is that they escalate. You may think that they're small and harmless for now, but, with continued encouragement, it only gets worse.
The same way a drug addict becomes tolerant to a lower dose and begins to seek higher and more dangerous ones, you will eventually see fiction as insufficient and move on to harming real people.
A small reminder: condemning the actions of a person who harms others, traumatizes other victims, harms THEMSELVES, and creates yet another cover-up method for abusers – this is not victimblaming and not a cult of the ideal victim. You are not denying that this specific person has trauma or don't say that they deserved it/are to blame for what happened; you are not saying they are a "bad victim" because they have certain thoughts or character traits that don't fit the concept of an "ideal victim"; you are not telling them their trauma is dummy because they are "not the right victim." You can empathize with them for what they've been through, but you are stating a fact: their actions harm them and those around them, regardless of whether trauma caused this behavior. This is not an excuse; it's an explanation. Trauma should not be a tool to permit oneself to do terrible things. These accusations from proshippers that antis "believe in an ideal victim" or "suffer from victimblaming" because they consider their behavior dangerous – this is merely a manipulation to silence everyone, even other victims. This manipulation is resorted to not only by them but also by actual abusers, predators, procontact pedophiles, and radqueers. You are not bad if you consider this harmful.
"If this person decided that if a child can consent in my pedo shotacon fanfiction, then it works the same way in reality, then they are simply abnormal!!!"
Wow, you just admitted that it does affect someone after all.
Proshippers are getting acquainted with the rationalizations of paraphiles. Yes, this abnormal pedophile can indeed start thinking that a real child can give consent because of your fanfiction; this is a quite common phenomenon for such abnormal individuals, because an ego-syntonic paraphile vitally needs to normalize their attraction for themselves, and content that portrays children as willing and presents their paraphilia as normal will always be the strongest tool for this rationalization.
I'm not defending proshippers/darkshippers but this community is mostly filled with minors and adults looking for easy access, this is doing more harm than good and shouldn't be put in the public eye, you're doing more harm than good, tweens and teens can get hurt!!!
Imagine making a place for a proshippers to have a breeding ground in, disgusting, we are trying to get these ppl healthier ways to "cope" and safely ship in an already predatory space, why are you encouraging this??? This is so disappointing and honestly I'm so tired. Just bc you make a space specifically for teens, adults will find their way into it, things like this should STAY ONLINE, you're endangering an already unstable community by exposing them to the public.
And don't let adults like these encourage nasty behavior like this, the internet might not be a safe space for minors but that doesn't mean we don't care about them.
I said it in the orignal comment but, The Fact proshippers love to yap and yap about how "Ugh! Antishippers are just people who made their discomfort a whole thing!' Meanwhile they have fucking cafes and accounts dedicated to proshipping is super ironic.
This is so absurd that it looks like some kind of fake or AI. Like, how financially profitable is it to even create such cafes? There are at most 30 proshippers living in this city, and ordinary people will be scared off by these masterpiece names of dishes. I did a little digging into who this Tony Zaret is and yes, it looks like it really is fake, because his channel itself is a complete provocation and fake "news reports".
"He did nothing" is a favorite argument of radqueers and proshippers when they need to defend the poor, oppressed "anti-contact" pedophiles, who are merely masturbating to loli girls, because they did nothing now, and therefore everything is fine. These people try with all their might to distance the word "pedophile" from the phrase "potential rapist," albeit for different reasons. Some because they are either like that themselves or because of their "masterful" ideology, others due to desensitization or identifying with them, as proshippers are also, in a way, persecuted and oppressed everywhere for the reason "just because people are evil"(in their opinion).
I have very often seen the thesis in their communities that if a pedophile has not yet committed a contact crime against a child, then "negativity" (which is actually just basic caution) towards them is bad, they should not be treated as dangerous, they should be pitied and told how oppressed they are. The problem is that both sides encourage the consumption of drawn materials or even AI CSAM by these same pedophiles.
They are ignoring with all their might that the "public anger" directed at pedophiles is not for fun, but because they are, by definition, potential predators, all of them. Yes, even me. They ALREADY have a deviation that is directed at one of the most vulnerable and protected groups – children. This is not bullying or oppression; it is a justified wariness towards a person from whom anything can be expected, and that "anything" is extremely destructive. The impression is created that they are trying to establish a "protection" for individuals who consciously amplify their inclinations through "safe fiction," which already consciously acts on their pedophilic tendencies above the protection of a real child. They completely ignore the children who are potential victims, refusing to remember that "hatred" towards pedophiles is not unfounded. It's not the same as gays; they cannot be oppressed because this "negativity" is justified. It's a basic understanding that children are living beings who need protection. Yes, they haven't done anything yet, but what's the chance they won't tomorrow? Or the day after? The fact that they haven't decided it's time to act now doesn't negate the fact that they are still potentially dangerous and this is precisely the reason for the wariness. And this danger is directed at REAL CHILDREN, not an abstract group that can defend itself, but one that has no chance of fighting back. They are all obsessed with direct harm, biting into it with all four limbs and not even realizing it.
You didn't think he might just never hurt anyone, like, ever, lol? I'm using legal photos of kids for body reference, fantasizing about raping a drawn child, and I only just figured out who I am, but I haven't done anything to a real kid. So why should anyone be suspicious of me?
Firstly, using real images of children to create sexualized pictures is, at the very least, using REAL children for sexual content. Secondly, why are you sharing the details of how you create your art with me? In any case, your "but what if he doesn't cause harm" already indicates that you are ignoring the risks.
"He did nothing" is a favorite argument of radqueers and proshippers when they need to defend the poor, oppressed "anti-contact" pedophiles, who are merely masturbating to loli girls, because they did nothing now, and therefore everything is fine. These people try with all their might to distance the word "pedophile" from the phrase "potential rapist," albeit for different reasons. Some because they are either like that themselves or because of their "masterful" ideology, others due to desensitization or identifying with them, as proshippers are also, in a way, persecuted and oppressed everywhere for the reason "just because people are evil"(in their opinion).
I have very often seen the thesis in their communities that if a pedophile has not yet committed a contact crime against a child, then "negativity" (which is actually just basic caution) towards them is bad, they should not be treated as dangerous, they should be pitied and told how oppressed they are. The problem is that both sides encourage the consumption of drawn materials or even AI CSAM by these same pedophiles.
They are ignoring with all their might that the "public anger" directed at pedophiles is not for fun, but because they are, by definition, potential predators, all of them. Yes, even me. They ALREADY have a deviation that is directed at one of the most vulnerable and protected groups – children. This is not bullying or oppression; it is a justified wariness towards a person from whom anything can be expected, and that "anything" is extremely destructive. The impression is created that they are trying to establish a "protection" for individuals who consciously amplify their inclinations through "safe fiction," which already consciously acts on their pedophilic tendencies above the protection of a real child. They completely ignore the children who are potential victims, refusing to remember that "hatred" towards pedophiles is not unfounded. It's not the same as gays; they cannot be oppressed because this "negativity" is justified. It's a basic understanding that children are living beings who need protection. Yes, they haven't done anything yet, but what's the chance they won't tomorrow? Or the day after? The fact that they haven't decided it's time to act now doesn't negate the fact that they are still potentially dangerous and this is precisely the reason for the wariness. And this danger is directed at REAL CHILDREN, not an abstract group that can defend itself, but one that has no chance of fighting back. They are all obsessed with direct harm, biting into it with all four limbs and not even realizing it.
It is not normal to imitate a five-year-old or a infant to get excited.
It is not normal to be aroused by such a partner imitating a child.
Sexualizing children's things and behavior is not normal.
Sexualizing the relationship between a child and an adult through this is not normal.
No, this isn't a "harmless, just weird" kink. You can call me a kink shamer, but when some DDLG or ageplay reaches the point where one of the partners begins to imitate a minor and use children's things for arousal - this is disgusting. Want to have this experience? Make the game platonic, without sexualizing anything related to children.
Proshippers often don't even realize they are trying to normalize pedophilic fantasies, which are already directly linked to reality and aimed at real children. I very often see them zealously trying to prove that fantasizing about this with a perfectly hyper-realistic child is normal. In general, if fantasies are already directed towards realistic scenarios with hyper-realistic children, then this is also normal, because it's "just thoughts" and "just a fetish." Even within the proshipper community, there are articles justifying this. This is compounded by the fact that in fantasies, the child is still not real, even if they are based on a really existing child or are image a really existing child. I have seen little condemnation from them towards AI CSAM, where a perfectly realistic-looking child is most often depicted. Realistic sex dolls that resemble children also fall into this category, as they are not interested in the impact, but only in direct harm. They don't care about indirect harm. Essentially, they are trying to justify pedophilia, and not "anti-contact" pedophilia, because a pedophile who indulges their paraphilia and feeds it will never be considered an anti-contact pedophile; they are still PRO-contact because they are still engaging with media that sexualizes children and their paraphilia, and therefore are still engaging with their paraphilia and destructive fantasies.
They are not much different from the same radqueers, who also more actively support such fantasies and also believe that even pedophilia through contact is normal, AS LONG AS IT "DOES NOT DIRECTLY HARM." They are also absolutely certain that destructive actions are not inherently harmful.
I'm so sick of proshippers twisting therapists' words and talking about how stupid anti are for trying to 'outshout therapists😒😒'.I'm also undergoing psychotherapy as a victim of CSA, as it was essentially one of the contributing factors to the development of my paraphilia. My psychotherapist also said that I'm not to blame for having these thoughts and that they are simply a consequence of trauma and my obsession with shotacon and darkships since adolescence. He didn't tell me, 'These fantasies are a healthy phenomenon, and everything is fine, so we won't treat them because it's normal!' He simply worked through a tactic of acceptance and hammered in the concept that I couldn't control these thoughts because they were intrusive and that it was a logical consequence of everything I'd been through. And therein lies the problem, because proshippers try to portray this as encouragement and approval of destructive fantasies and coping mechanisms. I consciously redirected my fantasies into a different channel, unrelated to child abuse. My psychotherapist encouraged this transition and made it clear that those fantasies were unhealthy, But it was my crutch, which prevented me from having a breakdown. Not in the sense that it helped me live normally, but in the sense that, at that moment, it was the best option. It's comparable to someone lost in the woods who, having sustained an injury, tries to fashion a cast out of sticks and mud. It's not a good alternative to a real cast, it's not something to be considered normal treatment for a broken leg, but it was the only thing that could be done, and it at least saved me from death. However, because of it, I started to normalize my inclinations and link violence against children and the children themselves with sexuality.
I decided to check if Elizabeth Jeglic had actually written this article and went to Google Scholar. There was no such article from her for 2023. So, I went to the CUNY Academic website itself, as well as the John Jay College website, and checked what articles by her were available on these sites for 2023. There was no article about this there either. She specializes in child sexual abuse, suicide, and the study of sex offender behavior. It's unlikely she would be interested in studying online arguments, even if they were indirectly related to her work. I checked again and found out that the article is real, but it wasn't written by her, but by Adrian Alessandro Stone, who is her student, and she only supervised his work. This is just a student's work. I don't know how she graded it, but the fact remains: the person lied; the work wasn't written by her.
please read this thesis! it's very insightful and written by a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology :] her wikipedia page attached below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jeglic
Oh, these brilliant professors and PhDs whose conclusions are not shared by the majority. One such individual claimed that some forms of autism are caused by phones, and now, according to their logic, this is the truth. In my country, there are plenty of examples of these 'professors' who have spouted utter nonsense, such as the idea that pedo/philia is simply a man being bored with adult women and deciding to turn to children, or that victims of assault should be grateful to their perpetrators, and that if your son plays with dolls, he will grow up to be gay. The credibility of information should not be judged by the fact that some professor said it, but by whether the majority of other experts share these conclusions.
