[gjsman-1000]

> what does the data actually tell us?

The anecdotal evidence is that most child abusers started with CSAM and continued escalation from there; not that they would have been abusers except for CSAM.

While it has never been proven to be a casual link, Ted Bundy, Brian Mitchell, Mark Bridger, Jeffrey Dahmer, and now Bryan Kohberger all accessed violent pornography before taking their actions. Dahmer stated it was his ritual - consume violent pornography before finding the next victim. Bundy meanwhile stated it was the tipping point for him psychologically, more than any other known factor, even describing it as his "fuel."

[Cartoxy]

Some promote the honeypot web to catch the tech illiterate perps. Given your position Would you condone?.

I think I would, if your at the point of seeking. But some would say it's causatory.

[9rx]

However, the anecdotal evidence around the regular adult porn industry is that users go in the opposite direction. The data is abundantly clear that people, especially young people, are having less sex, all while porn consumption has increased substantially. Likewise, causality hasn't been proven, but it is likely the most compelling answer.

Why it is it different?

At what rate have child abuses declined?

[gjsman-1000]

It's hard to know because while less sex is occurring; anecdotally (look around on TikTok), people are bringing violent and dangerous behaviors into the bedroom like never before.

Sexual choking has gone from a fringe behavior, into something that a study (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-024-02937-y) found over 50% of young Australians had tried; even though almost anyone with a medical background finds that extremely dangerous. This is a behavior that compounds, with women who went through it four times "safely" having brain damage markers in their blood (https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/c6zbv_v1). This is also why the UK (not sure if they did it yet) was even talking about banning all depictions, after an independent study said it was popularly perceived as "safe and common" among Gen Z.

[Workaccount2]

The anti-porn lobby has been going crazy with this study since its release.

I guess when you are desperate for any grain of data backing your totally failed "porn is bad" hypothesis (porn has been a click away for hundred of millions going on 30 years now), you'll latch on to anything.

Ironically if you read the study, it's basically "People enjoyed the act and consented to it, but it's bad because not breathing can be fatal and it's also illegal in Australia". It's also a singular study (rather than a long term trend meta-study) with an online survey data collection method, so about as low of a rigor as you can get.

Of course though, it's gone around heavily marketed as "Record levels of boys are watching porn and going around violently choking out young women because of it".

[10298373]

> Likewise, causality hasn't been proven, but it is likely the most compelling answer.

That's a massive stretch—there are many things that have been declining along with the rate at which people have been having sex. Porn is in no way "the most compelling answer". It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.

[9rx]

> Porn is in no way "the most compelling answer".

What are you seeing people finding more compelling? There was that whole "the chemicals are turning frogs gay and now you too" or whatever it was, but that wasn't compelling. Tell that to the average Joe and he will simply wonder what kind of drugs you are on. Tell the average Joe that "increased porn consumption is diminishing partnered sexual activity" and you'll at least get, "Huh. Maybe."

> It certainly could be a factor, sure, but by no means the only one.

Case in point. But it seems you're confusing a compelling explanation with a scientific explanation. Whether or not porn is actually a factor is entirely immaterial. It might have absolutely nothing to do with it. It can still be compelling even if that is the case.