Prostasia and what they've gotten wrong about fandom and otaku:
https://pastebin.com/dtfNLMe8 
The full article is here, however, I will be summarizing every paragraph here
I've kind of noticed a trend in the way Prostasia writes about fandom, and the current approach they have could be

not just misleading, but potentially dangerous to fandom as a whole. Please read the entire thread as I also address solutions to this problem

1. What Prostais claims to be

Prostasia claims to be an organization that advocates for CSA prevention, but also cares about making sure human rights are not trampled upon in the process. As for fandom, I think Prostasia has forgotten WHO needs protecting. More on that later.

2. Ageplay

For example Prostasia wrote a piece on Ageplay, to explain how it's different from pedophilia. It may sound weird, but distinguishing kink from pedophilia is important because it makes sure we don't spend our time examining the wrong groups of people.

3. "Artistic freedom"

Prostasia also wrote about how controversial movies that deal with themes of pedophilia or CSA are worth protecting, because just like ageplay, they serve a separate audience. The literary value of a movie far outweighs any hypothetical pedophile

masturbating to it, Prostasia says

4. Pattern

If youve noticed, there's a consistency in Prostasia's way of arguing for the existence of controversial content; suggesting that said content serves people that are completely unrelated from pedophiles

Why arent otaku and proshippers given the same treatment?

In their article about the proposed UN Loli ban, they say theyre going to address "why it's wrong to ban manga" yet they barely mention otaku, the group this ban would affect, much, if at all.

It gets worse in the next article

5. Misdirection

In their article about "purity policing" they start to conflate things that REALLY don't belong together. Instead of arguing that "proshippers" have their own agenda, halfway through, Prostasia quotes a completely irrelevant quote about pedophiles reacting to

real images, and then never talks about "proshippers" again. Not even kidding, the word "shipper" by itself stops getting used. They go on and on about pedophiles consuming this and that as outlets for their attractions, but theyre completely missing the point of the proshipper

movement.

Proshippers, or otaku, or weebs, whatever, despite being different in some way have one common trait: they enjoy fiction because it's fiction, not as a substitute for real life. If Prostasia kept its arguing style consistent, shouldnt they argue that fandom serves

a group of people completely separate from pedophiles? They did so with ageplay and movies. And there's already research studying otaku, Patrick Galbraith has proven the existence of otaku that enjoy fictional content and prefer it to be fictional, you might know this as a

"2d complex". It seems Prostasia doesn't seem to want to validate a separate focus group for problematic fiction, and I have no idea why.

6. Danger

This misuse of that study should be regarded as dangerous. It's suggesting that decisively fictional pornography is no different from real images - something that people like Patrick Galbraith has already disproven.

It also suggests that, by Prostasia talking about pedophiles more than shippers, that fandom exists to cater to pedophiles first, and shippers second, it should be the reverse. Prostasia made it clear ageplay is for kinksters and movies for teachers, so isn't fandom for shippers?

7. Priorities

Controversial art or text should not be based on how an extreme minority of our population that is already regarded as mentally ill reacts to it. Distinguishing between "fictional fetishists" such as otaku and shippers, and pedophiles with real urges, is important.

Forgetting to do so suggests that EVERYONE that enjoys taboo fiction is a pedophile or predator that's a hair's length from turning their attention to someone they could sexually abuse, whether that be rape, incest, or CSA, and also suggests anyone using said content is coping

with a real life attraction.

We already have research that proves this false.

THAT research should have been highlighted by Prostasia instead of a statistic that involved people with real pedophilic urges.

8. Staff

Even the faculty of Prostasia fail to acknowledge otaku in this statement that "Prostasia supports scientific research into whether cartoons or dolls could be a harmless outlet for some people who might otherwise offend against real kids."

I hate this statement for

two main reasons.

It suggests anyone that DOES enjoy "problematic cartoons" is a pedophile, and also suggests cartoons serve pedophiles first, which again, both of these are false.

Now to see *why* this could be happening.

9. Background Check

To understand *why* Prostasia may have done this, it's important to look at *who* wrote the articles. The author of the ageplay article is a practicing ddlg little. It would make sense for her to cut ties with pedophilia.

The author of the fandom article is a lawyer first and foremost. This explains him hinging super hard on "literary value". He may not see otaku or fandom as having much of any value, so he tries to argue it from a different perspective. But I'm confused as to why he does not

simply look for research on these groups, instead of somewhat ignorantly forgetting about them after he makes his case about problematic fiction eliciting positive effects from pedophiles.

Even if that statement is true, it's like deciding whether or not lollipops are okay based

on the reactions of recovering smokers. They're not the audience.

10. Fundraising

I NEED you guys to read this one though. Prostasia claims to be "researching fantasy content" which sounds like a good thing, but when you actually read it you realize they're doing so in the complete wrong direction.

The first part of question addresses the fears that antis have; they will find a way to discredit the already false notion that the mere existence decisively fictional material would harm the "general public"

But the second half demonstrates that Prostasia only cares about how

pedophiles would react to said material, completely blowing over the existence of people with "2D Complexes"

I strongly want this question to be re-written, so that the funds they use instead go to adding to proof validating shippers and otaku as a separate group from pedophiles

11. Conclusion

I want you guys to understand that this is not meant to cause outrage or start a moral panic.

I want Prostasia to give shippers and otaku fair treatment like they do to kinksters and filmmakers.

Prostasia has proven they're capable of separating those two

groups from pedophiles; we should demand the same.

"Dark fic" and "gross hentai" is significantly more than just a coping outlet for the diseased among us.

We have research that proves this.

Pretending that problematic art is just a coping tool for pedophiles, and little more

suggests that once pedophiles are gone, problematic media has no purpose, and should be discarded.

This is not what people should settle for.

Shippers and otaku should demand more respect for their media, as well as an acknowledgement as groups of people with their own

agendas and wants, completely separate from those with very real desires to cause irreparable harm to a child.

Galbraith already did so.

Prostasia should follow suit.

Proshippers, artists, otaku, "weebs", fandom members, whatever you want to call them, need protection from false accusations. But they also need protection from false associations.