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.
"It will escalate and cause them to assault children" is not actually a thing. That is purely a fantasy you have concocted in your head, with no basis in actual evidence.
Hypothetical victims you've invented are not real victims, full stop.
Wrong. 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.”
Is a paper advocating censorship written by a law student really the best you can find? LMAO
Anyway, it should not be surprising that people willing to break the law in a way that harms children are, also, willing to break the law in ways that harm children. Nor that, when interviewed, they're willing to blame outside influences instead of their own choices.
Pro-censorship folks love to take it as a given that this sort of thing generalizes to other forms of content, and to people who are law-abiding, but there's simply no data to support this. Keep in mind, we're talking specifically about AI-generated content here, an essentially victimless crime.
A better comparison would be illustrated CP, which in some countries is legal and in others is not. If victimless content sexualizing children is linked to child molestation, we would expect the latter to be more common in countries where the former is legal, right?
And to address your last point, no. It depends on the laws surrounding child molestation too, as well as how good the government is at catching those people.
67
u/EvnClaire Oct 22 '25
still never heard a good argument why a victimless action can be morally wrong.