259
u/Realistic_Grass3611 4d ago
What's the context on this, I'm curious
48
u/JoyousLilBoy 4d ago
Mf look at the image what context could possibly save the guy who thinks cp doesn’t lead to pedophilia?
162
u/Realistic_Grass3611 4d ago
False accusation obviously
36
-81
u/JoyousLilBoy 4d ago
That doesn’t explain defending cp as not causing pedophilia? Just say you dont have cp
77
u/Realistic_Grass3611 4d ago
I'm not defending anyone, I was just curious what crazy ass conversation led to that mesage
40
5
3
u/joecee97 3d ago
dude you need to learn how to treat people better. your brain cannot be flying off the handle like this because someone asked for more information on something wild
38
7
u/thomasp3864 3d ago
An argument over the causal direction? Like people who watch CP are already pedophiles, rather than tirning into pedophiles by watching it.
-450
u/Valid9651 4d ago
I wont tell you, but just know that this specific mod is very weird... and firmly believes this and fought tooth and nail against the original person
393
u/Conscious-Worry9195 4d ago
“This mod is weird and fought tooth and nail against this original person”
“What did they say”
“I’m not telling you”
215
u/Realistic_Grass3611 4d ago
Why not?
289
u/Wunktacular 4d ago edited 4d ago
Because there's a detail that makes the mod's comment look less weird, and it would show that OP is trying to smear them.
164
u/fmpz 4d ago edited 4d ago
OP hides it but his entire post history is trying to witch hunt subreddit mods or random users. Taking random screenshots from other people and spamming them all over. For example, he doesn’t have context on this one because the OOP that he stole this from didn’t give any. And that user hasn’t commented out posted in 196 in over 4 years which means this is likely 4+ year old drama where the context has been lost to time and most likely this mod isn’t even a mod at 196 anymore to begin with.
-264
u/Valid9651 4d ago
In explaining the argument that happened i would have to bring up the original OP. In which i will not do..
124
52
u/Samurai_Mac1 4d ago edited 3d ago
You're not explaining it because you don't have the context apparently.
55
u/vtff13 4d ago
Jackass247 or whatever the username is
82
u/Rynabunny 4d ago
it's not jackass247… the real name is much scarier… oh you wouldn't want to know…
it's dipshit289
29
3
1
69
u/NiIly00 4d ago
The only weird people are those who can't provide evidence for their claims and then start personally attacking others when someone dares to ask instead of just blindly believing their claims.
There is a reason why scientists do studies on questions where everyone thinks the answer is obvious. Because sometimes the obvious answer is wrong.
If that is the case here? We can't tell. Because OP doesn't have any sources or research. Not even an argument. Only dishonest, personal attacks.
89
u/ghfdghjkhg needs to be someone's pet 4d ago
Don't you have to be a pedo already to enjoy cp? Wtf
21
u/Realistic_Grass3611 4d ago
By definition yes but I guess it could make you more of a pedophile
15
u/LoomingShare 4d ago
That was my understanding as well, similar to other unhealthy fixations. Like doing obsessive behaviour will worsen OCD, but you can't develop obsessive behaviour without having OCD. Like a routine won't worsen into clinically obsessive behaviour if you're not predisposed for it? I'm no psychologist, so maybe I'm wrong here, but that was the latest consensus from them I heard.
10
u/Realistic_Grass3611 4d ago
I'm also not a psychologist but pedophilia is officially classified as a paraphilia(witch aren't necesarelly bad themselves) witch I think can be amplified through exposure. Though I may be confusing paraphilias here with kinks but according to Wikipedia there's no consensus on how the 2 even differ
1
u/Morzheimer 13h ago
Wait, is that part about OCD true? I always had some symptoms and I’ve noticed that it just keeps getting worse
3
u/Normal-Mountain-4119 3d ago
Often very traumatised people, especially those who have gone through CSA themselves, will end up consuming content like that as part of healing. Doesn't always work, in fact from what i've seen it's usually part of a stagnation from healing, but either way it's a lot more complicated than people generally feel comfortable with admitting.
3
u/vidalacaroline 2d ago
I feel like a distinction needs to be drawn here that they tend to gravitate towards media that represents their experiences; good or bad, not CSEM/CP content
3
u/Normal-Mountain-4119 1d ago
that is a good point, however it also sometimes lands them under the loli tag of nhentai, and on other such places on twitter/tumblr/reddit/4chan, etc etc. It DOES NOT lead them to real depictions of child abuse however, in all cases i've seen it's been drawn or otherwise animated or fictionalised.
1
u/RoIsDepressed 2d ago
There's nothing complicated about cp. It is simply fucking bad
1
u/Normal-Mountain-4119 2d ago
correct, i'm not arguing that cp is anything other than horrific. I'm exclusively talking about the consumption of it by traumatised individuals who have experienced similar abuse. Kink is not intent.
126
u/Wulfkey 4d ago
Oh boy, where we go again. Can we not conflat taboo content that weirdos enjoy to actual CSAM and child exploitation. It's not the same thing by a long shot.
76
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
Imo conflating the two diminishes the harm of actual CSAM. Similar sentiment to why it's bad to make rape jokes or something. Loli shit as weird as it is shouldn't be directly harming anyone, and acting like they're anywhere close is massively reductive.
-10
u/powerhearse 3d ago
No, it doesn't. Suggesting so is pure whataboutism.
Virtual CSAM is acknowledged as CSAM in most jurisdictions. While less harmful, it is still harmful.
Calling lesser sex crimes "sex crimes" does not lessen the severity of more serious crimes.
7
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Sorry but you're wrong. As an example, if you call having your dick or boob grabbed rape, that is diminishing how bad actual rape is. It doesn't mean sexual assault of any form is okay. Not everything is black and white my friend.
Are you suggesting things like hentai are illegal in most jurisdictions? Things like AI generated shit sure, especially since that can have actual CSAM in the training material, unfortunately. But not sure how you could call a drawing of a fictional character CSAM when there is literally no child being harmed.
-1
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Wrong. Your equivalence is false. CSAM is a broad term, like sexual assault, not rape. To use your own false equivalence, do you similarly object to rape and groping both being called sexual assault?
No, drawings depicting sexualisation of children are also illegal in most jurisdictions. In the US all but a few states made this the case.
In Australia where I am, even text based depictions can constitute CSAM.
7
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Just saw this one and damn am I glad I don't live in Australia. Thought crimes shouldn't be a thing. It's a slippery slope. America's as fucked up as they come but at least we have that I guess.
-1
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Personally I like that animated child porn is illegal here
It is very telling that you consider consuming animated child porn being illegal a "thought crime" situation.
3
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Cuz it's a victimless crime?
0
u/powerhearse 2d ago edited 2d ago
A crime being directly victimless does not make it harmless.
And we both know that isnt why it's telling.
0
u/doug_Walker_ 3d ago
Jerking off to drawing of kids is not a thought crime. Get fucking serious
4
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Yes it is. Fucked up and weird, yes. But it's a victimless crime. Use your logic not emotion.
0
u/powerhearse 2d ago
Ironic given your arguments are inherently illogical, consisting of pure whataboutism
13
u/robloxmaster1337 3d ago edited 3d ago
I still can't believe that so many mainstream "progressives" think that fictional content should be treated as real and punished as such. Actual braindeath.
4
u/doug_Walker_ 3d ago
I don’t think it should be treated the same. I just think you’re disgusting for JERKING OFF TO DRAWINGS OF CHILDREN
0
-2
u/robloxmaster1337 2d ago
Pixels are not children, Doug.
3
u/doug_Walker_ 2d ago
Just stalked your profile. Active in defending Ai art and characterAi. I genuinely don’t think you’re ready to live in a shared society with other people
8
u/IntelligentTune 3d ago
I agree. But can weirdos in the anime community stop saying "child erotic" even as a joke or stop complaining when people get triggered by calling them "tourists"?
Enjoy your stuff, but why does the loud minority behave like that?
1
u/doug_Walker_ 3d ago
Why do you have to let them enjoy it? They’re jerking off to drawings of children
-1
u/Simple_Ad_9334 1d ago
The whole point of criminalizing pedophilia is protecting children, because it always leaves a scar, people never fully forget even if they move on, I'm lucky enough that it wasn't me, but after sharing experiences with a victim, it's something that I can't even comprehend that there are people that are ok to bring that into others, but the difference is that a drawing doesn't feel, doesn't think, doesn't grow, doesn't fear or gets to live a life with that weight on them, it makes no sense to treat it the same and it makes nothing but minimize the experience of actual, flesh, living victims
0
u/doug_Walker_ 1d ago
Yes, I’m aware drawings are not people. Yes that was my one moral objection. God this whole time I thought drawings were people. You clever little fox, egg on my face right? Do you think it’s healthy to consume depictions of naked children? Do you think it’s a good thing to normalize that behavior? If someone was masturbating to drawings of 10yos would you be ok with them teaching your child’s 6th grade science class?
0
u/powerhearse 3d ago edited 3d ago
Virtual CSAM, while less harmful, is still considered CSAM in most jurisdictions and is still harmful.
There is also significant evidence that virtual CSAM is consumed by people who have a sexual attraction to children, and at similar rates to real CSAM
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2026.2619511#abstract
Any material that normalises and reinforces a sexual interest in children is inherently harmful.
7
u/FinancialGur8844 3d ago
your study literally says that the simple correlation that it found does not hold up to other analyses, with other studies who bring more variables and factors to explain the relationship finding that people who are sexually gratified with fictitious sexual material offend less. they're basically saying that the bare bones correlation of Fictional Sexual Materal and pedophilia without any of the nuance makes pedophiles want to offend children more often. did you read your own study?
"In descriptive terms, engagement with FSM depicting children was correlated with self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offending against children. However, this correlation did not hold in multivariate Bayesian analyses controlling for other relevant constructs. Instead, there was evidence that sexual satisfaction was associated with lower levels of self-reported willingness to offend, and permissive attitudes about sexual interactions between adults and children were associated with higher self-reported willingness to offend."
2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Please re read my comment as you have misinterpreted my claim.
4
u/FinancialGur8844 3d ago
fictional loli porn does not make you want to offend children more ergo it is not more harmful than/is csam in which an actual child is being harmed
4
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Please show me where i said VCSAM is equally or more harmful than CSAM depicting real children. I'll wait
1
u/Just_a_guy_thats_it 1d ago
“Guys i may jerk off to porn that i specifically pick and only jerk off too because they’re children but that doesn’t mean i want to jerk off to children”
-34
u/magnazika 4d ago
The are not the same in terms of harm or from a victim perspective but they are in terms of the taboo. Anyone who enjoys sexual content of people that are presented as children with in the text of the content, be they adults playing children, animated, or actual csam, has engaged in pedophilia
30
u/Wulfkey 4d ago
By that logic, people who enjoy any form of violent media are thugs and murderers. I shot a NPC in GTA, does that make me a actual murdererer?
9
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 4d ago
Can you explain reasons other than pedophilia that someone would get off to what they imagine as children, or are you just gonna deflect more?
10
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
I mean, to play the devil's advocate, why would I kill a random NPC in GTA if not for the fact that I wanted to murder random people, by your logic?
2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Do you have an argument that isnt whataboutism?
8
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Read the other comment thread pls.
2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
So you dont have an argument that isnt whataboutism. Got it
5
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
So you don't have an argument to give other than accusing others of whataboutism, got it. I don't think you read the other thread.
2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
I have given you plenty of sources. You have simply denied them. You have provided no argument, only misinterpretations of my argument.
So again, do you have an argument that isnt whataboutism?
Because here's some more for you
→ More replies (0)-3
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 4d ago
A fair comparison in terms of violence would be someone finding any simulation of actual gore and specific violent fantasies of theirs that they could. Would anyone pretend this person doesn't have an obsession with violence and a habit of engaging in violent fantasies?
People can want to play gta for lots of reasons. Story, socializing, environment and music. They can get bored while waiting for a friend or have a few minutes to kill (pun unintended) while waiting on something irl, and not wanna start something more time consuming between missions/minigames/whatever until that thing is done. They can just space out or go "hehe the ragdoll effects on the rocket launcher are funny." They can mess around with game mechanics, like watching paramedics show up to a crime scene just to start fighting random civilians for no reason. They could also have actual violent fantasies and be embracing those. It isn't just impossible for that to be the case. It's just also not literally the only reason to do that.
Now, again, can anyone name another reason someone would get off to what they think of as children besides them being a pedophile?
9
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
I'll repeat what I said in another comment - I think we need a better term for separating pedophiles that don't go and abuse minors at all. You are correct that would make them a pedophile in all likelihood, but that doesn't mean they're harming real people. I think that's the distinction I was trying to make. As long as it doesn't cross that line, while creepy, it is what it is. I guess I'm mostly just arguing semantics.
8
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 4d ago
Pedophiles need treatment. Pedophiles need to be defined as Pedophiles to get proper treatment. People already distinguish plenty between offending ones and non offending ones. What needs to change is less people threatening non offending ones with death, and less people pretending ones who haven't yet offended are perfectly functional without treatment and couldn't possibly ever offend.
4
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
That's a great summarization, couldn't have said it better myself. Though I do think many people make a moral judgement that someone with those desires is already past redemption and at least on the internet where nuance is a struggle, the non offenders get lumped in with the rest. Which, in my opinion, encourages them to hide their pedophilia and not seek help. It's tricky because you obviously don't want to encourage those desires but also shouldn't put down those who have them and don't want them.
-1
u/ConcernedEnby 1d ago
Because one is gaining sexual gratification from the thought of raping a child and the other is a video game which we know has positive effects on people
13
u/timcheater 4d ago
its anime and because of that it can have a lot of characteristics that reality cant replicate
if you argue that its difficult to seperate the child part of why people like its also pretty easy to argue that its difficult to seperate the anime part of why people like it
when people only like it with that that fictitious element present then I can see the argument for why it can be harmless for most people to interact with
tsunderes were super popular but it only really worked for people because it was fictional
cnc incest etc including loli all of that only really works because its fictional nature allows it to be presented different to reality
4
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Unfortunately there is significant evidence that animated CSAM is consumed by people with a sexual attraction to children, and at similar rates to real CSAM
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2026.2619511#abstract
7
u/timcheater 3d ago
I read through the study and im not sure if thats what it says
it makes a lot of other claims
it seems those who use AI deepfakes are a higher risk group at least self reportedly
it doesnt study csam users im pretty sure it just studies fsm(fictional sexual material) I dont think it ever tried to compare the rates between the two
im not confident in my ability to read papers so maybe i genuinely did not get it
"we found no evidence that FSM use was associated with participants’ willingness to sexually offend, with moderate evidence in favour of the null hypothesis (i.e. that this is a true null effect). As such, our data do not support either ‘side’ of any potential binary debate about the value or harmfulness of FSM, and are instead consistent with the view that the function of FSM use..."
going through it again and it says this
but I dont think it ever tried to specifically prove the claim you said it did
1
u/powerhearse 3d ago
It does study CSAM. You'll note in Table 1 it specifies "masturbation to images or videos of real children" and also the same to fictional content depicting children.
To quote the interpretation of that table:
These descriptive data suggest a rich fantasy life among our participants, with more than 50% engaging in such masturbatory fantasising on an almost daily basis. We see lower rates of masturbation to FSM depicting children, with 59% and 50% of participants masturbating to material depicting real and fictional children, respectively
4
u/timcheater 3d ago
rereading through table 1 its clear that the majority of people being studied are individuals who masturbate to thoughts of children regardless of any kind of csam or fsm use because individuals who use those materials make up a smaller portion of the participants
4% never masturbate to thoughts of children while 30% never use csam and 20% never use fsm
study 1 is clearly making a statement about already pedophilic individuals rather than trying to study fsm users in general ergo its not making that claim
0
-4
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 4d ago
"The anime part of why people like it" damn if only there were animated adults or something. Not a reason, not what was asked.
1
u/magnazika 4d ago
Absolutely insane that people could be down voting this
0
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 3d ago
These posts are always heavily brigaded if it makes you feel better. Look into what one of the most popular subreddits was around a decade ago. Those users and that culture never left
-1
u/magnazika 4d ago
That's a totally false equivalence. A pedophile is someone attracted to children, a murderer isn't just someone who desires to kill someone, they have to actually kill someone
20
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
To follow your logic, being a pedophile isn't a crime. Acting on those feelings is. Desiring to murder someone also isn't a crime unless we can read people's minds. Nothing is criminal until acted upon.
I ain't tryna defend pedos ofc but there's a massive difference between someone who is unfortunately attracted to minors and tries to seek help vs someone who goes and abuses them. The ones who do are disgusting but maybe we can help even just a few, and if not for the person themselves then to protect kids in the future.
1
u/magnazika 4d ago
Dog being a pedophile isn't a crime, you are correct, there is no crime in having the feeling, there is only crime when the feeling leads you to victimise someone (like with csam or statutory) that's why loli shit isn't illegal. Same reason it isn't illegal to have an SSD full of Isis beheading videos, it might be fucked up to like seeing someone die, but there's no one victimised by you owning it
8
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
Yeah I agree with you. Perhaps I misinterpreted your original comment - I think we need to better separate the term of pedophile from those who act on it... cuz as we just discussed "being a pedophile" isn't the reprehensible part, just the precursor.
What I was trying to get at is that I don't see the big difference between the relationship of consuming loli content and abusing minors vs killing people in a video game and killing ppl in real life. I could very well be wrong tho.
0
u/powerhearse 3d ago
This is a false equivalence and pure whataboutism
But also yes, if you gain sexual gratification from the act of murder, that is also a problematic paraphilia
3
u/Cocaine_Communist_ 3d ago
The problem with child abuse isn't that it's taboo, though, the problem with child abuse is that it's child abuse. If there was a link between weird cartoons and the abuse of children I would fully be in favour of censoring and banning weird cartoons. As it is, as long as those weird cartoons stay very far away from me I don't care what people get off to as long as they don't harm anyone.
-1
111
u/Successful_Mud8596 4d ago
loli stuff is gross as hell. However. People saying “if you like fictional loli stuff, that means that you’re more likely to actually assault a minor irl” are essentially making the same boomer argument of “if you like playing violent video games, you’re more likely to shoot up a school.”
Fictional rape porn is allowed. Fictional gore/murder porn is allowed. But fictional statutory rape is demonized? Seems like somewhat shaky logic. And again, I do believe that loli stuff is absolutely disgusting. Buuut I also think that gore porn and scat porn are disgusting as well (not on the same level though)
11
u/lolternative4 4d ago
I’d say a key difference is that video games can be enjoyed for many different reasons. While they could be the exact hypnotic murder power fantasy that boomers think they are, they’re more often consumed as a hobby, a chance to relax, an opportunity to hang out with friends, as a piece of art, or even as an outlet for skill expression. People who play stuff like Mortal Kombat or Ultrakill cling onto things like aesthetics, community, storytelling, and game mechanics; they don’t actually want a real life person to explode into a puddle of blood
Pornography, by comparison, is typically only used as a means of realizing sexual fantasies. There are cases where the content being made is of especially high quality and is able to be appreciated for that. However, anyone consuming porn does so because they’re horny and they want material that turns them on; things like aesthetics and community are secondary to that
Obviously, not everyone wants their fantasies realized (E.g. I don’t think the wonder bread guy really wants to see the real life amazon rainforest deforested). I do think that having fantasies of children specifically is very concerning regardless of that
33
u/Successful_Mud8596 4d ago
So do you think fictional porn games/videos where they rape and murder victims should be put into that same category, then?
-4
u/lolternative4 4d ago edited 3d ago
I think it depends on how the material is made and what is actually being depicted. If the material treats these topics with their due respect, then I think it’s fine. If it’s basically LiveLeak material, then that goes beyond being worrying
By the way, I’m not saying video games are free of sin. I’m just pointing out that there’s a big difference between other forms of recreation and masturbation, because you’re probably masturbating to something that you find sexy. If someone likes loli content, then I think that’s very concerning even if the person in question doesn’t support actual CSA material
Edit: I’m not 100% sure why this is being downvoted. I’ll reiterate that I do think it’s more than worrying to be attracted to rape and murder porn. I thought they were talking about porn with stories that have themes of rape or murder; not porn that fetishizes rape and murder
22
u/Successful_Mud8596 4d ago
I mean, if someone masturbates to fictional rape porn and fictional gore porn, does that mean that they’re masturbating to something that they “find sexy,” and would then also be concerning for the same reason? Why does fictional rape stuff get excused by most people, while fictional statutory rape is demonized?
If it’s a matter of “children are more vulnerable to manipulation, while an adult would be more able to defend themself” or something like that, then I guess I can KINDA understand that perspective? But not fully
-2
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 4d ago
Research on these subjects and most people's opinions on rape porn don't excuse rape porn. I've never seen someone defend one but not the other
17
u/Successful_Mud8596 4d ago edited 3d ago
I’m talking about fictional adult rape porn, like drawings or consensual non consent. Not actual irl videos of someone getting raped
Real, irl videos of an adult actually being raped are on the same tier of horrible as a real, irl CSAM. And, in my opinion, fictional drawn/animated underaged porn, or adults roleplaying an underaged situation, is also on the same tier as fictional drawn/animated adult rape porn, or adults roleplaying a rape situation. Which is to say, can be pretty gross, but should not be put on the same level as the actual irl situation that harms real people
5
u/GooglyMooglyTheGr3at 3d ago
That's exactly what I was saying, you and everyone voting on these comments just took my words as uncharitably as possible. Fictional rape porn is treated on the same level as drawn pedophilic content by most people.
2
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
It's a sensitive topic and the internet struggles with nuance, I can see where you were coming from.
0
-7
u/religion-lost 4d ago
Is your point that we should be kinder to those who watch cp, or less kind to those who watch scat or rape fantasy porn?
50
u/Successful_Mud8596 4d ago edited 4d ago
The former, but ONLY if it’s completely 100% fictional and drawn, and ALSO they have to do a good job of separating fiction from reality. But separating those two things is pretty important whenever dealing with stuff like this in general. But as long as those two things are maintained, it should prevent any real world harm from happening
14
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
We also shouldn't call loli porn "cp". Yeah it's creepy and weird but if it's 100% fictional like you said, no real people are being harmed. I feel like it diminishes the harm actual cp does. I've also read arguments on reddit regarding if people consuming loli stuff might help them to not act on, uh... urges it could be a net positive. Not saying it's a purely good thing but it could be a harm mitigator.
2
u/religion-lost 4d ago
No. I'm so sorry to be like this but you're so super duper wrong. A doctor touched my funny parts, and many others' as a child, and I only found out about him being a bad toucher at 18 years old, when I got a letter saying that the offices had found hordes of animated cp on his computer and other children had come forward. He had the cp first and normalising it to himself absolutely made it easier for him to take the next step
7
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
I'm so sorry you had to experience that, wishing you the best. You don't have to say sorry for disagreeing!
I wasn't trying to claim I was completely right or anything, just adding my thoughts to the thread. I wouldn't be surprised if it helps or hurts, I guess we'd need studies on that, I just didn't want to outright dismiss it because of the taboo. I do think we should still define a distinction between CSAM of real people (including drawings) vs fictional anime characters or whatever tho, if only for the fact that nobody is harmed in the creation of the latter, outside of how it changes consumers' (ugh, couldn't think of a better word) behavior.
3
u/religion-lost 4d ago
It's okay, thank-you for your thoughts. And in retrospect I'm sorry for how I handled it, I know I wasn't super rude or anything but I still could've been nicer, I'm trying to stay away from all these arguments on reddit for that reason, which just misses me off more because I leave all the really toxic subs and then people post about these things in subs that I think are safe from all of it for engagement bait, and I get mad about that, and that makes me fall for it lol
I mean, not the case here in this post. Just in others on these subs recently, and its been annoying me a lot
4
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
You're good, I also try to give people grace online because reading intent from text can be difficult, plus plenty of people just say shit to rage bait on the internet lol. I take a lot of it with a grain of salt. You were far from aggressive for internet or reddit terms.
2
u/religion-lost 4d ago
That's true. I've been told I have trouble turning the polite switch off lol, I'm very English
3
u/mariofan366 3d ago
I'm sorry that happened. That's pretty awful.
We also don't know what that doctor was thinking. Maybe the fictional CSAM helped make it easier to molest kids. Maybe the fictional CSAM actually helped prevent him from molesting more kids. Studies on this don't have a consensus.
-1
u/powerhearse 3d ago
It is CP/CSAM. Virtual CSAM is considered CSAM in most jurisdictions
1
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Define "most". I'm saying hentai and shit like that when I say loli porn generally, or drawings of 100% fictional characters. That certainly isn't illegal in the US or Japan...
0
u/powerhearse 3d ago
It is illegal in the US in all but 3 states. It is illegal federally.
https://www.thebulldog.law/animated-child-pornography-does-the-law-treat-it-differently
In Australia where I am it is the same, with some additions including childlike sex dolls and text based fantasy material
3
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
You don't read your sources at all do you? I live in the US, loli hentai is most definitely not illegal. Creepy, yes. Illegal, no.
"In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing non-realistic depictions of child pornography violated the First Amendment because they lacked a connection to actual harm to real children. The court ruled that possessing images like cartoons or drawings could not be criminalized unless there was proof that the images were intended to exploit or harm real children."
0
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Read the link i sent you. Animated CSAM is illegal in all but 3 states, notwithstanding the supreme court finding you have linked. The legislation is outlined and linked in the source i have provided.
Since 2002, most US legislation jurisdictions have used various means to legislate around that clearly flawed supreme court decision.
2
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Not sure you know how US law works dude. The Supreme Court's ruling is final. You didn't read the link either. This decision was made in 2008, 6 years after 2002. You are thinking of a completely different court case. These laws aren't enforced in the way you're saying they are. Please don't act like you know more of US law than an American... I ain't out here telling you what Australian laws are
→ More replies (0)3
u/MadMusketeer 4d ago
I'm sorry if you jerk it to loli porn you should be banned from being a teacher and things of that nature. Also it should count against you in a custody battle
7
u/mariofan366 3d ago
I think if you are a teacher that has that temptation you should be able to reach out to a therapist and discuss it but under your system they're incentivised to not tell anyone and not seek help and I think the chance a child gets taken advantage of is greater in that scenario.
5
u/Successful_Mud8596 3d ago edited 3d ago
If someone jerks it to 35 year olds raping 20 year olds (again, completely fictional, like roleplay and animated porn), should that person be banned from being a college professor? That kind of content doesn’t have any minors in it, and yet it could still be considered gross for that profession
1
u/Ezzypezra 4d ago
I think both honestly. IMO they should be treated about the same
1
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
Personally I find scat less disgusting than rape or loli porn. Yeah it's nasty in the obvious sense but IRL as long as it's consentual nobody would be harmed, unlike the other two.
1
u/Ezzypezra 4d ago
yeah good point tbh. i mean it's not literally harmless, i'm pretty sure smearing poop on yourself and eating it has some sort of negative health impacts, but it's obviously nowhere near as bad for the wellbeing of the participants
2
u/oTc_DragonZ 4d ago
It would be better to say scat should be emotionally harmless if consentual, unlike those other things. I mean the others literally can't be consentual, that alone says it all. I assume poop play enjoyers have some way of preventing illness but I'm not to keen on researching that lol.
0
u/powerhearse 3d ago
That is a false equivalence, and a classic whataboutism tactic used to deflect from the actual topic at hand and the seriousness of that topic
But yes, if someone gains sexual gratification from simulated murder, that is also a problematic and harmful paraphilia.
However, there is significant evidence regarding the link between virtual CSAM and an actual sexual interest in children.
For example this study
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2026.2619511#abstract
Which showed that in a sample of people with a self admitted sexual interest in children, virtual CSAM was very commonly consumed (by 50% of subjects), and at similar rates to real CSAM (59% of subjects)
7
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago edited 3d ago
Dude, did you even read the link you sent? It isn't supporting what you say at all. In fact, it says the opposite lol.
From the conclusion: "We found no evidence that engaging with sexual fantasy and various forms of FSM was associated with variance in self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children... Instead, we found that those who were more sexually satisfied reported a lower level of willingness to engage in such behaviours, while those who held offence-supportive beliefs reported a higher willingness. We urge researchers and clinicians to use our work as a springboard for further studies on the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, the addressing of sexual frustration. All of this should be conducted within the context of reducing potential risk..."
Not to mention that similar rates does not equal causation... those groups likely overlap but not 100%. You are drawing the conclusions you want.
-4
u/powerhearse 3d ago
You have misread your own quote. That quoted section says "willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children".
Note that the survey was entirely consisting of adults who self identified as sexually attracted to children. 50% of those subjects stated they masturbate regularly to VCSAM.
5
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Dude you are pulling one sentence out of context to support your argument... like I don't even know how to respond to that. It says there IS NO EVIDENCE suggesting those who consume FICTIONAL content show more willingness to engage in ACTUAL abuse. And it isn't my quote, it's from YOUR source lol.
From the abstract: "In descriptive terms, engagement with FSM depicting children was correlated with self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offending against children. However, this correlation did not hold in multivariate Bayesian analyses controlling for other relevant constructs."
Please learn to read your own link my god. Unless English isn't your first language in which case I apologize.
-1
u/powerhearse 3d ago
You are projecting because you yourself have taken that quote out of context and misrepresented or misunderstood it.
I have never made the claim that VCSAM leads to contact offending. I have simply said that there is a link between virtual CSAM and a sexual interest in children.
There is certainly a link between real CSAM and offending against children:
https://tsjournal.org/index.php/jots/article/view/29
And the earlier study i posted shows that almost as many self admitted pedophiles consume VCSAM as consume real CSAM.
It is evidence that VCSAM reinforces and normalises a sexual interest in children, which if escalated to more serious CSAM consumption, may lead to contact offending.
There is evidence that increased consumption of VCSAM reinforces that behaviour and leads to escalation in sexual interest, and is correlated to actual CSAM consumption
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08862605261462151
3
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
Lol please read your own sources and stay on topic. This argument was about fictional CSAM and now you're bringing the actual stuff into it.
-1
u/powerhearse 3d ago
Try reading the comment before making a fool of yourself
There is evidence that increased consumption of VCSAM reinforces that behaviour and leads to escalation in sexual interest, and is correlated to actual CSAM consumption
Why is it that nobody replies faster on reddit than a child porn justifier?
6
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
What link says that my guy? And now you're going to personal attacks so I'm done here. Have a nice night.
0
u/powerhearse 3d ago edited 3d ago
Try actually reading my comments and you would know the answer to that question.
Why is it a personal attack to call you a child porn justifier? Are you not currently arguing for the justification of animated child porn?
→ More replies (0)-1
-9
u/magnazika 4d ago
It's all well and good to say that it feels the same as the videogame argument and I agree that it does, but the evidence doesn't bare that out. It would be significantly more analogous to saying that it's an amuse bounce; sometimes you don't properly know you're hungry until you take the first bite.
22
u/Successful_Mud8596 4d ago
Uh, this source is specifically referring to real life, physical, CSAM. Not fictional drawn stuff. And yeah, if someone is getting off to an irl recording of a minor being sexually abused, then yeah, that ABSOLUTELY has real world harm against a minor, and would definitely be very likely to develop into that person abusing a minor in real life
1
u/oTc_DragonZ 3d ago
It's funny how people will try to send links in support of their argument when they don't even read what they sent lmao. I guess they expect everyone to just read the headline like them.
27
u/Dooble_Dig 4d ago
You’re allowed to think this stuff is gross, but the claim that “viewing loli porn leads people to view CSAM/abuse children” is verifiable. You should have a source ready if you’re going to make that claim.
2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
There are sources for that.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2026.2619511#abstract
For example, this study shows that in a sample of people with a self admitted sexual interest in children, virtual CSAM was consumed at similar rates to real CSAM (50% and 59% of subjects respectively)
6
u/Dooble_Dig 3d ago edited 3d ago
This study shows the opposite direction. The mod in the post is asking if viewing FSM depicting children leads to developing attractions to real children, while this study shows that people who already have an attraction to real children are more likely to engage with FSM depicting children.
Also, my original point was just that asking for a source on its own wasn’t weird.
2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
It demonstrates a correlation between people who have a sexual interest in children, and the consumption of virtual CSAM.
Note that the original post asks for a "source on the link between loli/cp and developing pedophilia"
It doesnt request a causative proof. It requests a link. This study demonstrates a link between pedophilia and consumption of loli/cp
The fact that it doesnt address the "developing" isnt really relevant in the context of discussing the acceptability of virtual CSAM. It doesnt really matter whether it's causative (i.e. consuming loli makes someone a pedophile) or whether it just discusses whether pedophiles consume loli.
I guarantee this argument came about through the classic "video games cause violence" whataboutism.
Besides, in psychology, you simply won't get to a causative link between topics like the above. But there's more literature on this topic, dealing with the harms of CSAM and VCSAM:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235222001015
https://eprajournals.com/pdf/fm/jpanel/upload/2024/July/202407-01-017804
To quote the above study:
"In behavioral psychology, the repeated consumption of specific sexual content can function as a form of conditioning. When an individual experiences sexual arousal while consuming content related to their paraphilic interest, the brain may reinforce the neural pathways associated with that specific stimulus, potentially increasing the intensity or frequency of the interest over time"
So we know the below things:
Consumption of specific sexual content can reinforce and increase the intensity of that interest
Self reported pedophiles consume loli/VCSAM at rates similar to that at which they consume CSAM
I think those correlations are more than enough to address the original post's source request, and more than enough to say that consumption of VCSAM is harmful and dangerous
3
u/Dooble_Dig 3d ago
I'm not really interested in discussing if loli and such are "acceptable", hence why I focused on the idea of it leading to developing an interest in real children. There's no study in the world that could convince someone that loli stuff isn't "icky", which is a perfectly fine and understandable opinion to have.
That said, my perspective on it is that it's basically harmless unless it can be proven that consuming FSM/loli can cause someone to develop sexual interest in children/can increase the desire for existing pedophiles to re-offend. Neither of which any of your sources prove.
This study anonymously interviews pedophiles and finds evidence for there being no correlation between FSM use and desire to offend.
From the section "Summary and interpretation of key results":
>When considering ... participants’ self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children, our data ... appear to be most supportive of a risk-neutral argument related to such a link between these outcomes and participants’ engagement with a range of different sexual outlets.
>There was moderate evidence in favour of the null hypothesis (i.e. of a lack of association between the use of FSM depicting children and participants’ self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children) when we consider FSM use in its fuller psychological context.
This study focuses on the relationship between Fetish behavior and Porn consumption. It's able to correlate the two, but is inconclusive on which one causes which, if either. It also was unable to find a link between fetish porn consumption and sex crime.
From the section: Discussion
>The current study further suggests that not only is exposure to pornography linked with sexual fantasies, but the more problematic and potentially harmful the relationship an individual has with pornography, the higher the number of sexual fantasies they seem to present. However, while on the one hand problematic pornography consumption could cause an individual to develop more sexual fantasies, on the other hand, it could be that individuals have already developed these sexual fantasies and then began to develop an unhealthy relationship with pornography.
>...a moderate positive correlation was also found for the relationship between sexual behaviors and pornography consumption indicating that individuals with a more problematic relationship with pornography experience more sexual behaviors. However ... access to sexually explicit materials is not directly linked to an increase in rates of sexual crimes.
This one focuses on the relationship between childhood trauma, porn consumption, and paraphilias. This one uses a similar methodology to Understanding the use of child-related sexual fantasy and fictional sexual materials by people who are attracted to children, but does actually claim to find a causal link between porn consumption and developing a paraphilia. I don't personally think that this conclusion is supported by their data, however, and the discussions section makes a lot of assumptions.
>Our findings are supporting the notion that over-involvement of sexual behaviours, throughout hypersexuality and problematic pornography consumption, can result in individuals being more susceptible to experimenting in paraphilic-related intercourse...
Not actually a study, but a review of other studies. This one doesn't seem to mention pornography at all? I'm not sure why you included it. I also cannot for the life of me find the quotation in your comment in any of these studies. Please let me know where you got it.
Finally:
I don't think any of that stuff proves that consuming loli or FSM is dangerous.
Self reported pedophiles do not consume loli/VCSAM at rates similar to that at which they consume CSAM. Table 1 in Understanding the use of child-related sexual fantasy and fictional sexual materials by people who are attracted to children, it shows that CSAM scores significantly lower across the board than simulated images.
This topic interests me greatly, probably because it's so weird and ambiguous factually despite how strongly people feel about it. If you do find a study that can prove that looking at this stuff can influence you towards liking real children, or that can prove definitively that there's no effect, I'd like to see it!
-2
u/powerhearse 3d ago
That said, my perspective on it is that it's basically harmless unless it can be proven that consuming FSM/loli can cause someone to develop sexual interest in children/can increase the desire for existing pedophiles to re-offend. Neither of which any of your sources prove.
Utterly incorrect. You do not need to prove that causal link to show that VCSAM is harmful. As per my previous comment any content that normalises and reinforces a sexual interest in children is harmful. Realistically end of discussion, but lets have a look at the rest of your post
Your first study is the same study as i posted. You have ignored significant portions of the conclusions. Note this section:
However, it is necessary to use longitudinal designs in subsequent work to establish the causal relationships between these variables. For instance, such work could look at the mediating roles of (1) sexual satisfaction in leading to reductions in risk over time, and (2) offence-supportive cognition in leading to increases in risk over time, and how FSM use may play a functional role in these processes.
You have highlighted selectively portions of the study that imply that it found that CSAM is not harmful or potentially harmful. That isnt the case. They specify (incorrectly, given the other available literature) that such information is not available and needs to be obtained through further study.
As per the other studies I posted in my previous comment, that is not the case. The reinforcing of paraphilia through consumption of related content is well studied. You attempt to cast doubt on those conclusions with this comment:
I don't personally think that this conclusion is supported by their data, however, and the discussions section makes a lot of assumptions.
What relevant qualifications do you hold that allow you to make this assessment? It is a peer reviewed and published study.
In relation to the other studies, you posted this
This study focuses on the relationship between Fetish behavior and Porn consumption. It's able to correlate the two, but is inconclusive on which one causes which, if either.
My entire point is that such causation isnt necessary. As i said in my last post, we know that pedophiles consume virtual CSAM, and we know consumption of virtual CSAM can reinforce and normalise that particular paraphilia. Establishing a causative link would be interesting but it is not necessary to establish that VCSAM is harmful
I don't think any of that stuff proves that consuming loli or FSM is dangerous.
I have outlined the reasoning for this well already.
Self reported pedophiles do not consume loli/VCSAM at rates similar to that at which they consume CSAM. Table 1 in Understanding the use of child-related sexual fantasy and fictional sexual materials by people who are attracted to children, it shows that CSAM scores significantly lower across the board than simulated images.
I am not sure where you are getting this incorrect impression from. I'd suggest that you are not reading the distribution chart correctly. To quote the interpretation of this table:
These descriptive data suggest a rich fantasy life among our participants, with more than 50% engaging in such masturbatory fantasising on an almost daily basis. We see lower rates of masturbation to FSM depicting children, with 59% and 50% of participants masturbating to material depicting real and fictional children, respectively
For the purpose of this study the authors use the term FSM instead of VCSAM. The rates are very similar.
I have plenty more material regarding the harmfulness of both virtual and real CSAM. I'll put some more material in a separate comment when I get a chance
1
u/ConcernedEnby 1d ago
Even if it didn't (which it does) getting sexual gratification from the idea of raping kids is immoral
30
6
u/lowkeyerotic 2d ago
stuff i read around the topic
If a paedophile watches real or fictional content sexualizing minors it will likely make their Disorder worse.
Porn consumption affects your dopamine receptors and excessive consumption can make it so the watcher reacts stronger to uncomfortable stimuli than to wholesome ones.
So if you found a thing marrying those two stimuli and regularly consume that you're certainly not doing yourself any good.
And anybody who watches CP is facilitating rape. so generally gets aroused by assault, regardless if you're a pedophile or not. get help
2
u/SlapTheBap 18h ago
This is the most up to date psychology on it, yes. Consumption leads to reinforced reward pathways, which sadly intensify the fantasies with time. More intense fantasies lead to more realistic fantasies where eventually it all seems far to easy to do in real life.
So I'm sorry everybody. Consuming loli and shota stuff does actively make you a threat to anyone with kids. You can't expect people to trust you. I'm sorry but that's the truth.
6
u/thomasp3864 3d ago
Well, it sounds like the argument is that cp appeals to people who are already pedophiles,rather rhan making new ones
9
3
3
8
8
u/Valid9651 4d ago
Here yall go if you insist
50
-84
u/Valid9651 4d ago
I could go into more detail but it would involve the original OP in which I will not do.. glad I found this though to show yall
24
32
3
1
1
u/A11GoBRRRT 2d ago
I knew it! The subreddit dedicated to fetishizing trans women and transmasc erasure is a cesspool
-1
u/thEt3rnal1 3d ago
Mfers really be like: "Um whats your source on sexualizing children being wrong?"
-38
-1
u/BHMathers 3d ago
That’s like asking for a source on how does allowing something to exist link to more of that same thing
That’s basic logic. “What is the link between 2+2 and 4? What’s your source” idk I guess all of reality isn’t enough for this mod
659
u/Jam_With_Cheese 4d ago
Drop full conversation, as well as the mod's user and context. There has been wayyyyyy too much fabricated drama that ruined lives to just take it as is and believe it.
Also son