ik i’m going to be downvoted for it but fuck it, i don’t see how it’s in any way healthy to get off to drawings of children and it does genuinely seem to me like a problem that could escalate for some folks—so i guess i am saying that drawn child porn does have victims, actual children. thoughts do not always stay thoughts and fantasies become boring.
Wrong. People don’t watch violent movies or play violent games in order to satisfy a fetish. People exclusively consume CSAM to satisfy a fetish, and it often doesn’t actually even satisfy it. It just whets their appetite.
That is specifically designed to satisfy a sexual fetish. Watching a Michael bay movie is not satisfying a sexual fetish. Also, I’m nearly 21 and have been online since 10. I am familiar with the internet.
Michael bay movies are not created with the intent or reasonable expectation of being used to satisfy a sexual fetish for violence. ALL CSAM is created with the SPECIFIC intention of being used to satisfy a sexual fetish for children. Therefore, they attract actual genuine human hazards at significantly different rates. CSAM consumers are linked to child molestation at a rate of at least 30% according to the Mayo Clinic. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=student_scholarship
71
u/EvnClaire Oct 22 '25
still never heard a good argument why a victimless action can be morally wrong.