User talk:Thorn
Position
Hi. Would you like me to add you as an editorial lead on the Newgon Support Team (Quantitative Research and Public Health, or Psychology and Science Communication)? The role is a membership role, entails no responsibilities, but just describes the general purview of an editor's work. --The Admins (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Califia
Lets entertain which of those should be in the chronological archive. --The Admins (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Minor attraction in popular culture edits
Hi Thorn.
As someone who contributed much of the content in the Minor attraction in popular culture article, I appreciate that you added new entries for it as well as your effort in general.
But I do have some issues with you. Hear me out:
I saw that you added entries that were already present, meaning that the title in the list were repeated but with different descriptions, which may cause confusion. Matter of fact, you did it two times (notably, with the Death in Venice and Pretty Baby titles) in the live-action sub-section. So, next time you add any entry for the pop culture article, make sure to check if it was already added in the first place. You are free to add hyperlinks to the titles, and edit the description for any entry as long as you spell out the relevancy to MAPs. Just make sure to not repeat the same mistake, alright?
- Yes, I am sorry! I occasionally skipped checking, but I'll be more attentive to that, thank you! Thorn (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Percy Wiki
Pretty sure Percy's Wiki will not come back online as Percy is sadly dead. I finished copying all of the info on Thorstad a while ago, and it was useful in the chronological archive. I'm sure they have info on other scholars and activists (far from all of the listed, it is predominantly a gay site that leads towards pederasty) that would be useful in building profiles and adding to the archive.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200924025231/http://williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Scholars_and_Activists --The Admins (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Book by Filip Schuster
This book (in German) maybe has some useful information in studying and profiling historical "pedophiles". --The Admins (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Update on doll research
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380114150_Berichtete_Konsequenzen_des_Verbots_von_Sexpuppen_mit_kindlichem_Erscheinungsbild_Eine_Inhaltsanalyse_von_Betroffenenaussagen --Jim Burton (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Tromovitch survey research
https://boychat.org/cgi/deref.cgi?url=https://doshisha.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/2000821/files/023065040009.pdf --Jim Burton (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
MAPTorrent Project
I notice on Matrix, someone has set up a large archive that goes beyond the original files saved by Peace. Would you be interested in copying any unsaved documents to our cloud storage and starting the process of publishing them in a useful order (via the chronological archive)? --Jim Burton (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Children, kink, fetishes
I found this useful review which may interest you, particularly the Brown, 2019 study and it's conclusions about children and BDSM. May be useful for the childhood sexuality review.
https://sexedrescue.com/children-kink-fetishes/
--Jim Burton (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Effects of pornography
I recently did a very brief sweep of literature for our effects of pornography review. I located one paper that might be useful for a deep read.
https://www.academia.edu/11604002/Saving_the_Children_Pornography_Childhood_and_the_Internet --Jim Burton (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Fallacy List
There is a forum thread where a user has added some fallacies - a percentage of them are not covered on our list. Some of them also demonstrate how the fallacious argument might be used to argue in support of the subject.
Perhaps they could be added to our list, or integrated somehow. --Jim Burton (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! I have been researching the topic of ACSC for quite a bit and i would love if the wiki could respond to these two articles (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213402003174 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12151287/#:~:text=Men%20who%20reported%20sexual%20molestation,range%3D1.3-5.2)., availible on Annas Archive). They have been shown to me as counter-arguments against rind, claiming to show that, even if adult child sexual contact is viewed positively, they leads to increased negative mental health problems. Unsure what to make of it, if its caused by secondary victimization or not.If an article is ever written, or if a rebuttal is added to the wiki, please email me. Thanks a lot!
- I looked at these articles. The first study is weak due to small sample, the second is better, but didn't add news to the topic. The researchers themselves wrote about inability to make causal evidence, consent is a predictor of lesser disturbance compared to abuse, and although consented childhood experiences predicted more selfharm compared to control group, it should be kept in mind that multiple third factors which accompany sexual experiences weren’t considered in this study. I'd recommended our Research: Methodological flaws and syndrome construction In addition I recommend a good illustration of this topic: Peer contacts were associated—at magnitudes and significance levels comparable to adult-child sexual contacts—with overall well-being and sexual adjustment during adulthood. see study Edward O. Laumann, Christopher R. Browning, 2003 in Research:_Prevalence_of_Harm_and_Negative_Outcomes#Outcomes_and_"severity" section. These studies don't stand out as particularly strong compared to thousands of others with the same low level of evidence. But if there is need of a detailed analysis of these studies specifically, I can go into more detail, and probably add them to Research: Methodological flaws and syndrome construction as examples of low quality counter arguments Thorn (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)