Well, now that I got my story out of the way, let's get back to this party.
... I find that every time someone opens a sentence with 'so you're saying', what they are about to say is going to be anything but what the person is actually saying.
This is no exception.
That isn't what a strawman is.
You did it a-fucking-gain! Even your attempt to claim you're not using a strawman includes another strawman!
Presenting your argument and ridiculing it isn't a strawman.
It wouldn't be, if you presented my actual argument. But you didn't. You haven't. And you're still not.
First, the phrase "disproportionate number" doesn't actually say anything as to the proportion
Sure, but that wasn't really the point of the topic so much. If you'd like to go deeper into that tangent, we can do that. I'd like you to stop claiming I said stuff I never said, first, however.
A quick Google search says up to 5% of people are pedophiles
Most studies get raw numbers are closer to 0.3% . And a significant majority of that .3% are... difficult to
really nail down as pedophilia... like 12 year olds sexually experimenting with 7 or 8 year olds, or a remarkable percentage of child molesters that aren't attracted to children so much as attracted to the cruelty of the act.
It's all very complicated... but the belief that there's a total of 5% is... the most extreme possible extrapolation of what is observed and speculating on the unobserved- first accepting all edge cases 'totally count' and then adding to that the claim that over 90% of all pedophiles never act upon those urges.
In short: it's a pretty rare paraphilia. Less common, even, than such oddities as agalmatophilia (that's dolls and/or statues, if you're curious).
So rare that most people would likely never have even heard of it if it wasn't so destructive and shocking. 'If it bleeds, it leads' and all that jazz.
As opposed to Hebephilia, which is significantly more common and the overwhelming majority of sex crimes against minors.
because, like with every other walk of life, the vast majority of smut authors aren't going to be pedophiles
See, I never said otherwise. I never said anything to imply otherwise, save in your imagination. You pretending I have is why I'm saying you're strawmanning my argument.
You have no justification for why child grooming is a more likely reason for the proliferation of A/B/O smut than any other possible explanation.
The proliferation of extreme pornographic material on sites that make their material easily available to children and offer convenient access for the authors to interact with said children
is generally caused by child groomers. Because those sorts of sites are where pedophiles typically look for targets.
Like I said- it's really more about the way certain websites manage themselves than any specific fandom. But for relatively niche fandoms- and Omegaverse is
a very niche fandom- it doesn't require a great many to get involved to dramatically twist the culture. So niche even most people on
this website have probably never heard of it.
I've only heard of it pretty recently (couple years ago, maybe?), myself. And I take active interest in these sorts of social patterns.
As an aside, this is an erotic literature site whose verification process is 'tell me your age.' We're as secure as AO3, and likely as inundated with kids getting their smut on.
No, not really. Much as I have distaste for them in other aspects, they're actually pretty good about that, here.
I'm certain some of them have
tried. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if one or two even succeeded... but there's too few users and too active a modbase for it to be any sort of real risk. There are fatter, easier, targets out there.
Meanwhile, I'm not entirely sure AO3 even
has mods. I mean, I'm sure they must... but I've not seen any actual evidence of such. Which makes them even more poorly moderated than Youtube.