Thread by @ARoskinFrazee

As someone who studies sex offenders, I suppose I'm supposed to weigh in on that article. You know, THAT one discussed on the last day of #ASA2022 published in QR that I won't link. (Content warning: sexual violence) 1/8

First: I have no idea what the IRB was thinking. Purposefully inducing a physical sexual response to drawings of children "for research purposes" is wildly irresponsible. While studying those who cause harm is necessary, trying to become them is not. 2/8

Second, to correct a misconception I've seen repeated on many threads about the article: empirical evidence demonstrating a causal link between looking at drawn sexual images of children and someone actually harming a child is inconclusive. 3/8

Studies have found accessibility of pornography correlates with decreased sexual harm; studies have found the opposite. Actual images of children being abused are never okay, but asserting that fake imagery increases recidivism might not be true. The research is unclear. 4/8

I bring this up not to support the article, its methods, or sexual drawings of children, but to highlight a serious gap in the literature. We make terrible, ineffective policies regarding those who cause sexual harm because we assume things we have not proven. 5/8

We publicly shame those who cause harm by notifying their neighbors, limit their access to housing and social services, etc., all of which can cause depression and poverty that increases one's risk of causing harm. 6/8

As a survivor and someone who studies sexual violence, I think we should use this moment to realize that we need to support scholars conducting ETHICAL research on sexual harm — research that recognizes the humanity of those who cause harm and the humanity of survivors. 7/8

I encourage people interested in learning more to check out work by @fischermyn, Erica Meiners, and @trevorhoppe. (Feel free to name drop other scholars ethically working on this issue in the comments!) 8/8