You're viewing a single thread.
The fraction of teenage/underage girls on that list is too damn high (hell, Louise is 9)
Controversial opinion: If killing npcs in video games is fine and shouldn't land you in prison for murder, because they are fictional and not real people, then porn of "underage" fictional characters is also fine and shouldn't be illegal.
Finding something disgusting is not a proper reason to make something illegal. The only relevant aspect is whether it causes harm to others or not.
- Csam harms children -> should be illegal and punished
- fictional drawings don't harm anyone bevause no actual people involved -> should be legal
I'm not talking about legal judgement (I practically never do) and I'm not even talking bout legit PDF files.
It's just disgusting that rule 34 of literal children scores this high.
You can say "pedophiles".
But saying PDF files is funny
Don't discrace the good name of my friend, Portable Document Format
Adobe did that a long time ago.
Can we start calling them Adobe Lovers?
Legality and morality don't necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what's the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a "fictional character" that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that's something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.
to get off to drawings of children
They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.
what's the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a "fictional character" that looks like said child?
That's my whole point, it makes all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn't exist.
That's why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways) Then again that's why we watch fictional shows in the first place
I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
(Of course you are entitled to your feelings)I have always felt the "actually she's 1000 years old and just looks like a child" argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They're interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what's the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it's unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the "OK" side of the line isn't immoral.
I have always felt the "actually she's 1000 years old and just looks like a child" argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous
I haven't made that argument
It's the same argument, that the character only looks like a child, but isn't. I chose a hyperbolic example for emphasis, but it's the same argument. It looks like a child. That's the point.
I'm normally an anti-slippery slope person but there's a definite escalatory nature to how paedophiles operate, it's easy to see how images of fictional children can evolve into images of actual children.
How is this argument different than the "video games cause violence" argument?
The "video games cause violence" argument is wrong, because the vast majority of gamers don't try to use games as a substitute action for violent behaviour.
But there are of cause at least some mass murderers and school shooters, that have played violent games in order to fulfill their violent phantasies, couldn't do so in a long term and murdered real people instead.
Same goes with pedophiles. They want to fuck a child, use fictional characters to fulfill the phanstasy, get used to it and then escalate to pictures of real children and eventually real children.
Do you have any real-world or professional experience with people suffering from pedophilia?
I don't, but I doubt that stance as being unfairly projecting some idea of how things have to work on those people.
I for one can jerk off to the weirdest porn fantasy things, from the usual thinly-veiled step-siblings trope to rape play, weird power dynamics or tentacle porn (depictions of children not among them, I feel I have to mention that explicitly here), but I don't have any desire to experience any of that in real life, because I absolutely know it would be wrong.
I don't see why that should neccessarily be different for them.
Do you have any real-world or professional experience with people suffering from pedophilia?
I have been schooled on pedophilia in a professional context, during my undergrad and in a work-context. Yet I have not worked with pedophiles directly, nor have I had any contact to one, that I would be aware of.
Looking at the science both of our positions are reflected. As with so many things the answer is not a simple "yes" or "no".
If you want to take a bit of a deep dive, I recoment this study from 2023.
It looked at both of our positions: FSM (Fantasy Sexual Material) leads to real sexual violence against children vs. FSM reduces the risk of said practice.
Here is their summary of my position (FSM leads to sexual violence against children):
When applying the motivation-facilitation model to the context of FSM use, it can be theorized as to why, for a subset of users, engaging with such material could become problematic and increase the likelihood of committing a child sexual offense (whether that be offline or online), while for others this is not the case. As pedohebephilia is thought to be a motivating factor towards sexual offending in Seto’s model [21], engaging with FSM relating to children could heighten sexual arousal and therefore act as a facilitator to increase offending likelihood. With abstinence from masturbation being self-reported as a risk-management technique by some people who are attracted to children [16], this is a recognized idea by some members of the community. Over time, engaging in CSEM (especially forms such as child-like sex dolls, which offer a more realistic sexual experience) may contribute to the development of offence-supportive beliefs and the adoption of implicit theories about the acceptability of engaging in sexual activity with children (or child-like targets). The combination of enhanced sexual arousal to children (a potential motivator of offending), coupled with the development of permission-giving beliefs (facilitators of offending), may subsequently increase the risk of abuse being committed by somebody with attractions to children.
Here they are summarising your position, as far as I understand it (FSM helps to prevent sexual child abuse):
Alternatively, FSM use could be seen as beneficial by the motivation-facilitation model and instead reduce the likelihood of offending. Rather than heightening arousal, FSM could act as a safe sexual outlet that allows for a feeling of release and sense of catharsis [84], which could reduce a motivation to seek out real children as a sexual partner. Engaging with FSM also avoids the problematic suppression of sexual interests, with such suppression being linked to increases in self-perceived risks for offending among those with attractions to children [15]. In contrast to Stevens and Wood [16], Houtepen and colleagues reported that engagement in masturbatory fantasies was a common coping mechanism used by some people experiencing attractions to children, avoiding the need to access CSEM due to an alternative outlet being identified [3•].
They conclude, basicly, that more research is needed:
Given the present lack of understanding of FSM and how they are used, it is important to identify the factors associated with use and whether they are risk-enhancing or risk-reducing (i.e., protective). This knowledge could be beneficial to clinicians in the search for more effective methods to support people who are attracted to children when they are seeking help to manage their sexual interests. Nonetheless, Seto’s motivation-facilitation model provides a theoretical framework for thinking about this topic in a more nuanced way [21].
So, there we are. A long post to say maybe.
I suppose both of our positions might be viable and it can't be said yet, under what circumstances each one of us might be right.
Thanks for putting the work in, to coin such a well-rounded response on a topic that is usually easily derailed.
You seriously exceeded my expectations.I cannot read through that whole review right now, but it was an interesting read already for as far as I got, taking into account a lot of nuance to the topic, that one doesn't usually find in public debates. (Or at least, I wouldn't expect to find on a taboo topic like this. It's not like that's something I regularly discuss, just something I had thoughts about when reading comments under a random meme.
I guess I have nothing to add. You clearly understood my meaning very well and as the paper states, there's probably more research needed. I'd hypothesize, that engaging with such material can lead to both outcomes, just as it can for depictions of other illegal activities. The case might be warped however, because people who are exclusively attracted to children, have no way of acting out on that with a real person, whithout it being illegal and immoral, while people who are (also) attracted to adults have a plethora of possibilities. (And can live out some of their sexuality at least, even if they have trouble finding a partner that consensually takes part in their most extreme kinks)
So yeah, complex issue. Thanks for your valuable contribution.
So yeah, complex issue. Thanks for your valuable contribution.
On the contrary, I was happy to engage with a position that wasn't along the lines of "all pedophiles should commit suicide".
It is, as you say, a complex issue. That complexity and any nuance is usually absent of discussions about the topic on the Internet. Thanks for adding it here.
Because as I said, people with an interest in CSAM tend to escalate in their behaviour. Most don't jump straight into child pornography but start with less serious things like jailbait and non-sexualised images of children etc. It doesn't take a huge leap to see the same pathway with images of fictional children.
I'm not suggesting that everyone into this material will go on to abuse children or start to consume actual CSAM but there's a non-zero amount of actual paedophiles who started their journey with this exact material.
It's that the same with violence, people that want to commit acts of violence may start by acting out violence in video games?
In the UK it doesn't matter if its a photo of a real person or not, porn that depicts a child is illegal.
Tbh I think with the use of AI at this point this might be a pretty good law to have. "It was AI generated" is not a defence. Realistically if you are doing it for yourself no one will find out so there is some kind of argument as to it being harmless, but when you start doing other things with those images such as using them for blackmail the police should be able to use that as sufficient evidence to charge you.
loli haet pizza
I still find it fucked up that so many people are aroused by sexualising children, even though they are fictional.
Out of 11 we have:
Maggie Simpson Lisa Simpson Louise Belcher
And maybe Hayley Smith and Meg Griffin? Or are they 18?
Anyways, that’s a really high proportion, like a thirdish.
Maggie Simpson
You almost gave me a heart attack. It's Marge. (that said, I trust internet perverts enough to go for adult Maggie)
Edit: oh... it's the blurred out one
Hayley is like 19/20. Meg is in high school
Meg is 18yo btw
There's this joke once where Quagmire asks Meg if she's 18 yet. She says nope and he walks away.
lmao, there is an entire episode about meg 18th birthday and quagmire hunting her to bang her.
Yeah, I stopped watching Family Guy like 15 years ago. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There’s an episode in season 10 where Meg turns 18, and Quagmire ends up taking her to his remote sex cabin. Peter and Lois end up breaking in and threatening Quagmire to stay away from her.
Learning about family guy lore wasn't on my bingo card today.
So... when do the rule 34s canonically take place? /j
No, because Chris is the older brother and still goes to high school.
how are you sure about that
Hayley is in college. Afaik Meg is underage though.
Hayley would get it tho.
Millenial Hippie chick with daddy issues? Sign me up.
Shitty taste in men too
If it makes you feel any better, from a quick scan through some of the images the vast majority of them at least seem depict the characters as older and grown up.
I agree but the availability of csam on the internet (real or simulated) reduces the instances of real-world abuse so... take that as you will I guess :/Edit: I learned that in college about 7 years ago, but I researched it again and apparently the opposite is true, according to more recent evidence.
I'm not arguing against rule 34ing these characters.
But I refuse to believe that the fraction of actual pedophiles on rule34 is that high such that three of the top 11 haven't even hit puberty yet.
I think that lots of these numbers comes from some sort of taboo breaking.
Also there is probably some level of inflation from the characters being present even if they aren't necessarily part of the act. IE a porn comic where Bart and Lisa are complaining about thumping, cut to Marge and Homer fucking.
I rather like my hentai and have seen this type of thing frequently enough to say it's semi common. Though I am not into Simpsons personally, a bit too abstract and too far away from human coloration to enjoy.
Does it? I used to see this argument a lot on Reddit back in the early days when there were a lot more pedos on there and I don't really buy it. Are there any actual studies on this? I feel like there have got to be better ways at managing it than that at least from a clinical standpoint
No clue, but for what it's worth we know violent video games don't cause more violence and some studies show they can even reduce it at least so I'd imagine it would extrapolate similarly to other visual media
The difference is that (almost) everyone has an innate drive towards having sex that they don't have towards doing violent things. It's a totally different biochemical process to get horny than to get violent.
Having taken care of many children, I strongly disagree. Not just punching someone rather than talking it out is a learned thing that's also reinforced by society (for the most part).
If there wasn't an innate violence within humans, human history would look very different, and fascism wouldn't exist.
Also, both processes can activate the adrenal axis actually. It's not totally different, and there's some similarities.
Same guy here. Looked it up and no. My info was out of date.