World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The danger is in sexualizing children, it's not a normally occurring part of human sexuality, and if people can sexualize children easily that can lead to sexual abuse of actual children, and that's always harmful, seems like a 2=2 type of thing to say, but it is. Anyway, modern psychology shows that therapy for people who do sexualize children, who haven't actually abused any children in any way, are unlikely to ever abuse children, so the doll or child sex abuse images, or other 'outlets' of sexual behavior aren't shown to reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse, but therapy does. They don't need sex dolls, they need therapy. And then maybe a healthy sex life with an adult.
This feels a lot like the "violent video games cause violence" argument, but because it's about child abuse, people don't want to defend it.
Are there actually any studies supporting your comment? I briefly looked and couldn't find anything.
Very few companies will fund any research into this field and they almost always have it locked in private libraries and you have to request for it specifically. You basically won't ever find anything on the subject publicly or hell, even behind a publicly accessible paywall.
There have been a number of people over the years who have done this very research and spoken about it publicly and that's a key complaint they have on it.
Few times that research has been shared and I've had the privilege to actually read it. It has been shown that one. It is totally normal for sex preference development to just be stunted. It is a thing that just happens. That yes therapy does help and for the most part those who would not abuse so long as they get therapy show no indication that they would change in become an abuser.
It has also been shown that when there are healthy alternatives for the expression, those who are abusers and do so due to mental health, developmental or standard sexual preferences have access to those healthy alternatives. They are more likely to stop abusing or seek therapy once they have found a healthy outlet.
Pretty much the only case where you can say that not having a healthy alternative and therapy shows no help or those who choose to be abusers do entirely to personal reasons.
Basically the only time not having harm free. Healthy alternative material helps is when you're talking about rapists not pedophiles.
That's the other part of the problem. So many people just assume pedophiles are rapists. When one is just the sexual attraction, the editor is someone who is a abuser. And while common for those two things to be labels on the same person they don't have to be, nor do they need to be.
We demonize the issue so heavily that we do frequently drive people to seek out a healthy alternative and a safe method of expression into circles with abusers who will then use those people to make a profit. Which only drives the need for more abuse material.
It's the same problem that you see with basically any other drug vise issue that we overly demonize in society. If you don't give people a healthy alternative and a clear path from problem to safe solution to therapy, they'll never make it to therapy.
But unfortunately, due to the nature of the subject, finding anyone who's willing to fund more research, finding anyone who's willing to have their name publicly attached to that research and finding anyone who's willing to fund actual help for the issue is basically impossible.
For obvious reasons, I'm not going to read any reply to this comment. I've had enough death threats to last a lifetime. So if you have a differing opinion or if you want any more information then share it with others and do your own research.
I'm only sharing my personal knowledge that I have on the topic. Whether or not you choose to believe me is your prerogative. As always, this is the internet. Do your own research. And if you do not know how blame your public high school.
To be clear, I'm not doubting that therapy helps. Therapy is a great idea for everyone.
But I'm still dubious about the claim that access to artificial children, including AI porn, will cause pedophiles to offend (more than baseline), rather than provide an outlet for their urges. What makes this different than simulated violence in video games?
And finally, please take note of how unhelpful and condescending "do your own research" is, especially after starting your comment off with "this research is unavailable, but trust me, it exists".
See now that brings up a good question. Is there any evidence that shows that child like dolls lead to an increase in abuse of children? If so, then this is a bad example for the personal freedom vs percieved threat question. But I am not sure I have heard of any such evidence. Maybe it's just neutral. That said, whether it be this, or the right to do drugs in your own home, or the right to assisted suicide, or even the right to alcohol. The question I am asking is, where is the line between needing to have evidence versus having percieved evidence?
It's a question that will likely never be answered. Is it worse to have a child-like sex doll or a horny pedophile with no legal outlet?
Child sexual abuse has the same elements of rape, in fact some people who have raped children choose the victim not because of sexual attraction, but because the child was an ideal victim. Rape isn't sex. Child sexual abuse may be about sexual attraction to a degree, but people who go that route aren't doing so out of horny feelings. Abusers can spend years gaining access to victims, confusing rape and abuse with normal sexual desire is a common mistake, and a big part of excusing rape. Abusers and potential abusers don't stop because they can act out their desire alone or view related images, but it's shown repeatedly that therapy is effective.