I'm familiar with the subject through long study. The sources you identified were not previously known to me but I feel confident evaluating them as I have based on prior knowledge and review. Do you mean to argue whose web search skills are the best - a point I already spent a paragraph conceding - or do you mean to argue the subject actually under discussion?

I still don't understand where the anger is coming from. Why does it piss you off that I want to argue child sexual abuse is more common and more of a problem than it's broadly acknowledged to be? Are you assuming I mean to use that claim as an argument against porn or something? I really can't figure out what's gotten so far up your nose on this, and I wish I could because it's really making it impossible for us to have a conversation.

Last I recall, we spoke cordially enough last year, if not generally in agreement, on the subject of AI capable of CSAM generation, and how it might be regulated. That was coincidentally a very strange day for me, granted, but again, I struggle to see what's changed since to earn this sort of acrimony.

With whom do you understand yourself to be needing to have this fight right now?

> I still don't understand where the anger is coming from. Why does it piss you off that I want to argue child sexual abuse is more common and more of a problem than it's broadly acknowledged to be? Are you assuming I mean to use that claim as an argument against porn or something? I really can't figure out what's gotten so far up your nose on this, and I wish I could because it's really making it impossible for us to have a conversation.

It's pretty simple honestly, any online discussion about pornography has turned into a complete and total clown show and it has become increasingly obvious that people who are arguing are doing so in bad faith.

I don't know what previous conversations we've had, as I spend far too much time on this damned website and have probably made tens of thousands of comments, but I kind of had a bad feeling the moment I saw your first comment because I had a pretty good feeling you knew what sources people were referring to and decided to play it as if you didn't, for one reason or another. I can see strategically why one would do this when the data seems to contradict the conclusion you have drawn so unilaterally, but at the same time, it's an annoying strategy. It's like laying a trap.

I really don't like this sort of discussion thread:

> Oh, it would be great news if incidence of CSA has gone down. Care to link to a source?

> Sure, here: [d2l link]

> Ah, but, you see, that talks about prevalence, not incidence. [...]

Because you knew what direction it was going to go all along. Playing coy here feels like theatrics.

If I took your position, I'd probably go more along the lines of:

> I am aware of the abundance of studies that discuss the prevelance of CSA, but [...]

(And I'm sure people would probably downvote that, but also, I get downvoted any time I respond in one of these types of threads, so it wouldn't make any difference to me.)

Anyway, the truth is that when I saw your first post, I didn't know what type of trap was being set, but my expectations were pretty low. The actual nuance you brought up is more interesting than that, but still not something I really care to debate.

I'm completely lost.

You raise sources I've never seen, I evaluate them as fairly as I can, you don't like the result so I'm arguing in bad faith.

I mentioned incidence, one source raised to try to counter not only relates to prevalence rather than incidence but explains why this matters, but when I point out that a source you chose itself disclaims support for how you want to use it, I'm arguing in bad faith.

I still don't even know what kind of pernicious dishonesty I'm meant to be advancing here, but sure, if you like then apparently I'm setting some kind of trap, in service of good God, I still don't know what.

I don't know who you imagine yourself to be at war with here, but whoever you're talking to clearly isn't me, so...I don't know, good luck with the rest of your day, I guess. You're not wrong we both have better ways to spend our time, at least.

I can explain a lot of the disconnect: I simply don't believe you.

For one thing, because the decrease in CSA over time is so well-known that I am pretty sure one of the PDFs I have saved refers to it as having been "common knowledge" in the 2000s. I have a hard time understanding how someone could apparently have studied this topic in detail and not come across this.

For another, I posted 3 sources and you 'evaluated' them within 15 minutes of me posting them, and of course found issues with all of them.

Yes, I can see that you are replying cordially, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're being forthcoming, either. I've grown extremely tired of this type of discourse.

I mean, we could for a start talk about the difference in reporting rates versus actual incidence, and what that does to even the most basic epistemology in this space. We could talk about what tends to happen when people try to report, or what happened when I did. But I guess - because I didn't say, oh excuse me sir, you have three links so your argument is self-evidently correct and complete - you would rather assume I'm some kind of advocate for child molesters? So basically, fuck you.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Or, I don't know. Spend less time with TERF/SWERF, anti-pornography third-wave feminist lines of thought and argument, at least to the point where you regain the ability to recognize anything else when you see it.

This is the one thing Nietzsche said that's worth hearing, the shitty little edgelord he always was: it looks back, and you need to watch that. I think you haven't been. Your problem, not mine, thank goodness. I'd say "good luck," but given there is quite evidently nothing too low for you to think of me, your fortunes are entirely your own miserable business and frankly I both hope and expect you will fail.

You're insane. I know and think nothing about you and will forget your username by the time this conversation occurs next.

You needn't worry on that score. I had taken you for someone with sense. I appreciate the correction.

Currently it's 2025 - in the early 2000s when most of the sources you linked come from there wasn't even Facebook let alone pornhub. The ones reporting on more recent times seen to have consensus that factors in reporting, especially covid, make it difficult to come to any conclusion. So a fair point of discussion that seems to be a far cry from "common knowledge". I don't know what you're aiming for but it's hard to take it in good faith really.