Just when I thought Academia couldn't sink any lower.

[Imnobody4]

Not just a PhD in wanking, but a peer-reviewed paper on masturbating to images of young boys. Published in "Qualitative Methods". t.co/L3MnSkYQFN

twitter.com/ProfAliceS/status/1556584749447143425?t=v_5NNIZDXKNzFbMBZxWsfQ&s=19

How did this get past Manchester University's ethics process @OfficialUoM ? Masturbating to images of children and writing it up for public consumption does not seem ethical to me. This is hugely disturbing.

Actually I'm speechless.

Very much a Come, Friendly Asteroid! moment, isn't it?

Oh god, come wasn't the best choice of word there ...

Oh I just knew when I saw the thread girl what this was going to be.

And this person thinks they are going to get a job with that on their CV? Parents must be so proud…

Is that for real?

I think so. There is a researcher of that name in the Japanese Studies Dept at the University of Manchester. He's doing a funded Ph.D. It's not easy to get funding for a Ph.D. in a non-STEM subject, I believe. How odd (to put it as neutrally as possible) that the university awarded him a studentship on the basis of this research topic.

Makes the "porn scholar" at Exeter University look classy

I am now intrigued - what the hell is there to say about wanking, let alone a PhD on it?

Jesus H Christ on a fucking bike.

How is that legal?

Here's a link to Researchgate where this article is cited. www.researchgate.net/publication/360206602_I_am_not_alone_-_we_are_all_alone_Using_masturbation_as_an_ethnographic_method_in_research_on_shota_subculture_in_Japan

I'm not sure if the abstract is readable in full. It's unspeakably grim that we've reached a point where people seriously think this sort of self-regarding, valueless paedophile-adjacent nonsense can be classified as academic research. It's in a journal called Qualitative Research. I assume it's been peer reviewed to make it that far.

My DH never stops moaning about the idiocy of his PhD students. I'm going to show him this and get his thoughts when he gets home.

There's things in the link that shouldn't be reposted here e.g. his methodology segment. but this one line really struck me about his motivation and intent:
"Untangling this largely unresearched knot of desires for fictional boy characters will give us a better understanding of human sexuality and provide a more solid basis for policymaking."
The word policymaking in the context really does fill my heart with dread.
Anyone care to guess what policies he has in mind?

I thought obscene cartoon images of children is illegal?

You can read the whole article!

No discussion of ethics. He does talk about his 'self care' though. He talks about how he likes knowing he is part of a community of men masturbating to the same material. He may have stumbled across part of the reason for paedophile communities there, or what they get out of it, but he doesn't talk about that. Because he's not really interested in the ethics of it.

I literally can't think of anything to say beyond registering my outrage.

Is there any way to challenge the funding for this?

I'm not a lawyer but this seems to imply that it is
www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children
This section in particular:
"Prohibited Images of Children
Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 created the offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child. It is triable either way and punishable on indictment with a maximum of 3 years imprisonment.
The Law
This offence is targeted at non-photographic images; this includes computer-generated images (CGI’s), cartoons, manga images and drawings.
The offence specifically excludes indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs of children, as well as tracings or derivatives of photographs and pseudo-photographs.
Section 62(2) to (8) sets out the definition of possession of a prohibited image of a child. ‘Possession’ is to have the same meaning as s. 160 CJA 1988 and s.1 PCA 1978.
The Act defines a ‘pornographic image’ as one which must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Even if an image is pornographic, it will not be a prohibited image unless it also satisfies all the other aspects of the offence."

better understanding of human sexuality

That's male sexuality, mate.

Is it worth complaining to the universities minister whoever that is these days?

Andrea 'middle finger' Jenkins. Yes definitely.

The paper says no funding so I'm guessing they are either a self-funded PhD student or employed by the Uni as a Graduate teaching assistant

This offence is targeted at non-photographic images; this includes computer-generated images (CGI’s), cartoons, manga images and drawings.

I think I noticed he said he gain some of the material in Japan? Japan is/ was (haven't looked it up for a while) one of the few places that allows child sex abuse cartoons. Vile.

I'm going to phone the university tomorrow and I'll be phoning the police too.

I feel sick. Boak.

Odd, as this is his page on the university website where he says My PhD research is funded by the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures.

www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/karl.andersson-postgrad.html

Do we need to know that much about male sexuality? 🤢

Given he wrote a PhD about masturbating to it I think this bar is met "The Act defines a ‘pornographic image’ as one which must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."