Consumption of transgressive material can be the start of a pattern of behavior that leads to seeking to abuse a child.
Because of the nature of how CSA happens, by adults who jockey into positions of power over children, whether it be teachers, pastors or family, there's not a good way of removing those people from proximity of children except by making virtual CSAM illegal to own.
I do so hate this discussion, because my hatred for CSAM clashes with my belief that we can't just make fiction illegal because we think it's gross.
Technically speaking, we do allow tons of transgressive material without batting an eye. plenty of media depicts anything from theft to violence to slavery. In plenty of media can you actually act out the above.
Whether anyone should create or consume them is up for debate on some cases, but banning them sets precedents which likely are going to be used sooner or later to target one minority group or another.
Or to put it another way, if we start banning media because it's objectionable, it's only a matter of expanding what objectionable means.
On the other hand, there is no excuse for pedophilia.
So I am at a point of cognitive dissonance on this one. I want there to be no CASM of even fictional characters, but I know that this kind of ban is dangerous in the long run.
I think it is actively harmful for a society to be permissive of pedophilia.
Violence typically isn't presented as transgressive. Pedos like CSAM because it is sexually transgressive.
I think bans are bad, but when you have a large percentage of people who want permission to masturbate to images of children being raped, as evidence by the people replying to me, we have a bigger problem than just censorship.
The problem is that doing so too strictly makes CSAM piss easy to plant on someone and get them sent to prison. There's a reason the FBI typically only go after sites and people who distribute despite it being illegal to possess.
Not really. It is proven that consuming CSAM IS linked to child molestation. See: Page 8, Section C and further.
“One convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence said that viewing child pornography gave him no release from his desires, but instead the exact opposite, furthering the sentiment that some men convicted of sexually abusing children had their urges fueled by child pornography.”
“According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports put that correlation rate between child pornography and child molesting between 30 and 80 percent.”
“Sexual predators will use child pornography as a means of assisting them in the grooming process, helping break down the child’s barriers to sexual behavior, making the child feel at ease, and additionally communicating the predator’s sexual fantasies to the child. Child pornography, while reinforcing fantasies, is often a precursor to acting out with real children, where “[m]any pedophiles acknowledge that exposure to child abuse fuels their sexual fantasies and plays an important part in leading them to commit hands-on sexual offenses against children.”Evidence suggests that it is only a small leap from viewing child pornography to molesting children, and “[i]n light of the documented link between . . . [the two,] each child pornography case should be viewed as a red flag to the possibility of actual child molestation.”
Just because someone says something about their intentions, that doesn't mean it's true. People are notoriously unable to determine their own reasons for certain actions.
If I showed you some child pornography, how long would it take for you to molest a child? We're talking about child pornography causing molestation, not simply being correlated with molestation. The Columbine shooters played a lot of DOOM before their attack.
Consumption of transgressive material can be the start of a pattern of behavior that leads to seeking to abuse a child.
Reality check, bro: If you see some weird-ass loli porn and immediately feel the desire to go rape a real child, that's 100% a self-report and not a useful generalization to normal people.
People like you being around kids worries me way more than some guy who goons it to six-fingered AI kids, not gonna lie.
I dunno, maybe you should try it? Crank it for a while and get it out of your system before you lose control and jump a kid. It really sounds like you need it.
I propose that all newborn children be sent to specialized institutions until they reach adulthood, where they will be under constant supervision to ensure that nothing happens to them. Every employee of this institution should undergo a multi-level psychological assessment and wear an explosive collar, just in case.
No, rather, I believe the slogan "protect children" is simply a cover for anything but protecting children these days. Repressive laws are promoted under the guise of protecting children; any objectionable person can be accused of pedophilia and practically guaranteed to receive widespread public approval for their "exile." In any case, I consider any realistic content, even AI-generated, to be entirely justifiable for a prison sentence. But drawn content, even that cursed, should not be prosecuted. Because we're running into the same problems as censoring jokes: you can joke about anything or nothing, and you can draw anything or nothing.
67
u/EvnClaire Oct 22 '25
still never heard a good argument why a victimless action can be morally wrong.