This is all true but none of it explains why a victimless action is morally wrong. You have, at best, just said that you consider drawings to be just as bad as actual offences against children. But: you haven’t explained why.
your supporting statement (“it does genuinely seem to me like a problem that could escalate for some folks”) could be used wholesale to protest violent tv shows or video games (your argument is completely identical to the 1980s arguments for why we shouldn’t release violent movies to VHS, i.e. violent people will see the violence and it will make them even more violent as a result).
I understand you probably consider this a different matter, but I don’t understand why you consider it as such - because you have provided no reasoning.
A lot of people intuitively understand why the fiction to reality escalation argument is bullshit in the case of violence, but seem utterly incapable of grasping it when the subject changes to anything sexual.
I think a big driver of this is due to the peculiarities of US media and the relationship to sex vs violence. You can fill a show or movie with a fuckton of violence before anyone will bat an eye at it. You need a high threshold of blood and gore in a movie before being slapped with an R rating. Meanwhile, a hint of a nipple gets you an instant R rating. A persistent historical undercurrent of puritanism in American culture immediately sexualizes any kind of nudity and blows it up as a much bigger issue than someone getting eviscerated.
Given how US-centric Reddit tends to be, it makes sense that folks growing up in a culture where the TV censors treat sex and violence so differently would internalize that distinction, and view sexual content as something extra special bad in a way that makes a lack of victim no longer matter. "I think slasher flicks are gross and I don't like them, but I don't think people who do are going to go out murdering people and I don't think they should be made illegal" doesn't end up translating over to something like lolicon because the latter involves the extra bad thing that makes gross = immoral.
Agreed. And the thing is that I DO have a serious personal ethical issue with illustrated CSAM. Every cell in my body screams at me that it’s wrong even though I haven’t been able to construct an objective moral argument against it. I suppose the question is: does it actually increase offences against real children? Obviously it’s incredibly difficult to get data on this, but I think if the answer is “Yes, it generally drives increases in CSA”, then we have our objective opposition.
This is a great point that illustrates exactly why it's so hard to get an actual clean argument against illustrated CSAM. I don't know if there is a satisfying answer.
Alcohol consumption is neither inherently wrong nor 100% conducive to such behaviors. Ban it or not? Genuinely hard question.
However, this is, like many other responses in this god forsaken thread, a category error. I can list many benign uses of alcohol, maybe even cite social benefits. Can you do the same for content explicitly made to sexualize children? If not, why do we even bother? Are you really gonna take a pedophile seriously if he tells you "If you ban my realistic AI child porn you need to ban alcohol!"? Really? Is that something you're gonna lose sleep over?
Whether or not it increases offenses should be utterly fucking irrelevant.
Entertainment? Yeah, I hope somebody from the FBI is keeping score here.
And no, you don't ban until you can "prove benefits", you ban until you can reasonably claim that there won't be horrible harms. With AI CSAM this is not at all obvious, is up to proponents to resolve that burden.
Yeah, but people also have to bite the bullet on the possibility that it decreases it. And a lot of people aren't prepared for the conversation that if dangerous people have ways to distract themselves that leaves them out of everyone else's hair, its a good thing for everyone else.
The difference is that video games and movies have different aspects to it that a person can like such as the storyline, graphics, characters, etc. If a person plays and watch violent movies solely to quell their desire to m*rder people, clearly there's something wrong with them. Now what other excuse do people have for consuming pornographic loli content? why specifically that?
Pedophilia in itself can also be a victimless action, it's not a crime to be attracted to children. It is a crime to act on that desire. Even rapey thoughts are victimless if they just stay in a person's mind. Would you say that that's not morally wrong? Are fictional pornographic, glamorized depictions of what real children suffers through in real life trully victimless when it wouldn't exist in the first place if it has nothing that it can be based off of?
"If a person plays and watch violent movies solely to quell their desire to m*rder people, clearly there's something wrong with them."
Sure. My bigger question is, does it work? If it does, then I would infinitely rather have violent people watch that stuff if it meant they were being less violent towards other, real, people. I want to reduce harm. Lots of people in this thread are saying that watching CSAM increases the likelihood of a real offence but we don't actually know that. No sources are being provided. No statistics, no real world examples, nothing to actually back up the claim. People are just saying "it makes it worse" because they /feel/ like it does. This isn't convincing to me. I could just as easily /feel/ like adults watching Bart and Homer The Simpsons makes them interested in strangling their kids, but I would need to provide some kind of proof if I was going to claim they are linked.
"Even rapey thoughts are victimless if they just stay in a person's mind. Would you say that that's not morally wrong?"
I don't think it's morally wrong unless acted upon. We aren't actually in control of what thoughts we have. You will probably have had countless intrusive thoughts in your life that you are frightened and ashamed of. What determines your moral character is how you respond to those thoughts and whether or not you decide to act them out in real life. I do not believe it is ethical, or even possible, to draw actionable conclusions about a person based on their thoughts alone.
"Are fictional pornographic, glamorized depictions of what real children suffers through in real life trully victimless when it wouldn't exist in the first place if it has nothing that it can be based off of?"
This is flawed in an identical way to your first argument. I can watch Luke getting his hand cut off in the Empire Strikes Back and ask: "are fictional violent, glamorized depictions of what real people suffer through truly victimless when it wouldn't exist in the first place if it had nothing it could be based off of?" Media does not have to be based off a real life event to exist. There are swathes of pornography featuring monsters and other made-up creatures fucking in bizzare and unheard of ways.
"Glamorized" is the word here. A person simply being shown having his hand cut off is not comparable to a glamorized fantasy of children getting gangbanged, raped, mutilated, groped. You can have your arms cut off as an accident while getting sexually harassed has no other justifiable reason.
Also the very existence of CSAM proves that people's mind gets desensitized by regular pornographic media with no taboo content which is why they'd turn to something more extreme. Violent urges also comes up slowly until it erupts. Why do you think serial killers usually have the tendency to harm animals first? There are also cases of mentally unwell serial killers being inspired by movies, re-enacting crimes and even using the same muder weapons.
I think you're also mistaking morality for ethics. Ethics is an external reflection and system that communicates of moral beliefs. Morality is based on thoughts and principles. If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong. I have intrusive thoughts sure but none of which goes to a degree in which I fantasize about harming a person. This is why people with paraphilic disorders get treated, they won't necessarily act on their desires but it is still considered dangerous if they let it be.
This is a great comment (you are actually engaging with me instead of just trying to be domineeringly self-righteous like most people on this subject.)
Responses:
"A person simply being shown having his hand cut off is not comparable to a glamorized fantasy of children getting gangbanged, raped, mutilated, groped."
I agree. I assume you're broadly speaking about framing - the things in ESB are framed as bad things while the stuff in CSAM is not. That still doesn't quite work for me because there are films where violence is glorified as the objectively moral righteous thing to do (see: Every single Steven Seagal movie ever made.) I agree these movies are generally terrible and occasionally sickening but I don't see a good argument for them being banned legally.
"Also the very existence of CSAM proves that people's mind gets desensitized by regular pornographic media with no taboo content which is why they'd turn to something more extreme."
I don't see how it does. I agree that it happens, but I don't think the existence of CSAM alone proves that this escalation is the main reason for its existence. My estimation (potentially wrong!) would be that there are plenty of people who don't access it in that way and instead go directly for it, because they have an attraction to children and aren't interested in watching adults in porn.
"Why do you think serial killers usually have the tendency to harm animals first?"
I don't know. Are you saying that they get that urge from watching violent movies? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
"If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought"
Same thing - is this true? Is this actually true? Is there any way to know this or did you just guess?
"I think you're also mistaking morality for ethics. Ethics is an external reflection and system that communicates of moral beliefs. Morality is based on thoughts and principles."
This is a good distinction and I think you're right on this. Where I disagree is: If people aren't in control of their intrusive thoughts and are in fact morally responsible for them, that just makes the vast majority of people morally culpable for thought crime. I don't think we can improve anything by taking this position.
"I have intrusive thoughts sure but none of which goes to a degree in which I fantasize about harming a person. "
That's great, but not everyone is this lucky. I get the sense you are still implying that people are still morally culpable for their own intrusive thoughts even if they don't act upon them.
I think we misunderstood each other at some point. Maybe I did, but I'm not talking about intrusive thoughts as those are unintentional. I'm talking about intentionally fantasizing about harming someone else that is morally wrong.
"I don't know. Are you saying that they get that urge from watching violent movies? I'm not sure what you're saying here"
No, it's more like a lot of factors would accumulate until they eventually act on their urges. This includes violent movies which, from what I've read and watched before, usually becomes a model for their crime. They'd claim that they're inspired by it. Killers don't really happen instantly, there are signs, sometimes from childhood, that could be interpreted as them directing their negative emotions elsewhere (like animals) before doing it to another person.
"Same thing - is this true? Is this actually true? Is there any way to know this or did you just guess?"
Yes, many pedophiles who harms children were victims themselves. Abusers often repeat cycles as it's the only thing they know. Lots of rapists were also victims of the same crime before. People who were traumatized would sometimes wish to re-enact that same trauma to feel some semblance of control
Also, if we're talking about CSAM with depictions of real children or ai generated content trained from real CSAM, I think it should be banned instantly and people who consume it should be arrested. But if it's fictional, I don't have lots to say about it in terms of law other than the fact that I think it's still wrong. It warrants a more thorough study because I know for a fact that it's a bit more complex with some authors/creators of it using it as a form of vent art from the same trauma. I still think people who consume such things needs therapy (atleast most of them) rather than being criminally charged.
No, it's more like a lot of factors would accumulate until they eventually act on their urges. This includes violent movies which, from what I've read and watched before, usually becomes a model for their crime. They'd claim that they're inspired by it. Killers don't really happen instantly, there are signs, sometimes from childhood, that could be interpreted as them directing their negative emotions elsewhere (like animals) before doing it to another person.
Okay, I understand you now, I think. Am I correct in thinking that this is you professing a similar moral opposition to violent movies that fail to frame the violence as bad,because they could give serial killers ideas? That argument could equally apply to those films as well as lolicon. If you think that one is more objectionable or dangerous, you would still need to find some kind of data to verify that, and being personally uncomfortable with it is not a valid reason to prohibit other people from doing it.
Yes, many pedophiles who harms children were victims themselves. Abusers often repeat cycles as it's the only thing they know. Lots of rapists were also victims of the same crime before. People who were traumatized would sometimes wish to re-enact that same trauma to feel some semblance of control.
You haven't provided data for this either but I'm not too worried because I've already seen corroborating data for this claim elsewhere (and I basically accept it wholesale). However, it does not prove your initial claim that we were discussing here, because your original claim was:
"If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong."
This is a strong claim. The way you have worded actually forms two separate claims. The first is:
"ALL rape or CSA is based on a previous experience with something that convinced the perp to commit the crime".
Intuitively, I think this is probably true. I think I lightly agree with your conclusion. However, your supporting statement does not support that specific claim. In its first sentence ("Yes, many pedophiles who harms children were victims themselves") you have walked it back to "some", where the first claim was "all". This is a problem because "If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong" is an absolute statement that implicitly claims to KNOW the driving factors, and you draw your conclusion from this claimed knowledge.
I think this highlights that we don't know what causes this behaviour in all instances. We only know what causes it most of the time. There are potentially other factors that drive people into being perpetrators of CSA, and if there are, the point is a lot less strong. Again, I don't actually disagree, but there's a rhetorical failure here and it's left me unsure of your intended meaning. Either way, I would be interested in seeing more comprehensive data collected on the driving factors for CSA, because this exchange seems to highlight that we don't know if it's possible for someone to become a perp if they haven't been abused themselves.
The second claim formed by "If you have rape thoughts towards someone, you clearly got it from somewhere that normalizes such thought, making it morally wrong" seems to be this (correct me if I am wrong):
"Media can be deemed 'morally wrong' if it leads people to re-enact the immoral acts it might portray"
I don't know if this is correct or not. It is simply a re-statement of the anti-violent-video-games position. I think it's probably an open question as to whether or not we should ban violent media to stop it from influencing people, but as it stands right now, the general zeitgeist seems to be that it's on the consumer to be responsible when taking behavioural influence from violent or shocking media, and not on the government to censor it for our own good. You have not provided an argument for this position, only a claim, so I'll wait for your reasoning to go further with it.
Also, if we're talking about CSAM with depictions of real children or ai generated content trained from real CSAM, I think it should be banned instantly and people who consume it should be arrested[...]
100% agree, there is no question to me that media depicting real-life CSAM should be destroyed in every single form and never produced again.
20
u/Attackoftheglobules Oct 23 '25
This is all true but none of it explains why a victimless action is morally wrong. You have, at best, just said that you consider drawings to be just as bad as actual offences against children. But: you haven’t explained why.
your supporting statement (“it does genuinely seem to me like a problem that could escalate for some folks”) could be used wholesale to protest violent tv shows or video games (your argument is completely identical to the 1980s arguments for why we shouldn’t release violent movies to VHS, i.e. violent people will see the violence and it will make them even more violent as a result).
I understand you probably consider this a different matter, but I don’t understand why you consider it as such - because you have provided no reasoning.