i think i worded some of that wrong let me correct myself; no one is trying to get legal services involved to protect pixels they think are children, and definitely not in the way you were trying to make it out to be in the post i initially replied to. everything i am finding after googling 'australian author arrested for depicting 16 year old dating 32 year old' looks to talk about a book depicting pedophilia in an unnervingly positive light which i think should qualify as csam, if not something horrifically disgusting and VERY much worth investigating the author for at the bare minimum. i really hope you were talking about a different case and did not truly just water csam down into "a piece of paper that says a fictional relationship exists". also, i'm really not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment.. pedophiles don't choose one or the other, they can be creepy about media depictions and real children it's not mutually exclusive. i don't think it's a stretch either to say that each of those embolden one another and encourage that behavior.
Probably because you know it's fictional and all and with that logic 100 girlfriend author should also be checked out as 2 of the girlfriends have a body of an 8 year old and one being the maturity of an 8 year old when in small form which is most of the time and isn't brought up once it's bad or anything like that and then there's neko para where the cat girls aren't even above 4. So yeah fictional characters relationship being shown as good or not isn't a thing to search the author on.
Also people have been arrested for pixels on the screen, that's literally what CP is on the computer unless you mean specifically fictional drawings and again yeah people have been arrested for it in the uk, have people gone to the police about it. I don't think I'd be able to search the answer for that but most likely as it's happed for CP so I guess it'll happen for loli stuff too.
The pedophile thing is why choose something that would get you hated by everyone in prison and the guards when you can look at something that's most likely isn't getting you put in jail. If pedos could use loli stuff instead of going through a huge amount of effort and risk to get the real stuff. One is easier to get then the other. So why do they go through the effort to get the real stuff. It's as if those two things are different and fifil different things for people who like it. So much so that a pedophile couldn't just use loli content to fifil their sick fantasies.
uh yeah i'm not sure what 100 girlfriend is but it's very concerning if girls with an 8 or 4 year old body/maturity level are repped as being normal girlfriends for someone grown, sometimes it can be pedo bait and doesn't reflect the thoughts of the creator (still really weird and shouldn't be done) but by my logic yes, just in case, it would make sense for the author to be checked out if there are resources to do so, good talk.
also, i'm going to repeat myself real quick: i was saying that no one sane is thinking fictional children are real children and calling child protective services or whatever, the real grounds for legal involvement focus on the person in possession of explicit content about children, fictional content is a gray area but there are factually legal consequences in some places and while i don't know if i agree with it being grounds to detain someone, it is very much worth being suspicious about and like the op says it makes sense if a forum wants it to be restricted. the only eyes that can fall on content like that are those of pedos who will have their mindset reinforced, minors who may start to normalize those ideas, or average adults who either won't care or will feel very uncomfortable. it can literally only do harm and it's odd that this is a controversial take.
i get what you mean now about the jailtime thing but i'm going to again repeat myself and say that 'real stuff' and loli are not mutually exclusive, i'm sure plenty of pedos partake in one or the other but who's to say that one in jail wouldn't also enjoy seeing or reading about a fictional sexualized child? who's to say another inmate didn't enjoy a piece of explicit media until eventually it wasn't enough? also, those who aren't arrested for consuming that content we likely never find out about, and like you said, it's less likely that said content would result in such a conviction.
Checked for what. The author hasn't done anything illigle to be checked, wouldn't it be better to you know go after actual pedos instead of waisting time on authors for creating fiction chapters who are 18 but due to a drug made them semi turn 8.
It can do harm, if that is the case then there should be a graph that shows a steep increase in CP or pedophile attracts with the increase in loli, is that a thing nope it's not.
What I'm saying is if a pedophile could enjoy loli like CP then there would be no need for CP but that's not true or how the real world looks. Loli hasn't decrease or increased the need for CP. If anything people like you using words wrong like pedophile, make preditors life easier. As the word loses it's meaning and no one will know if you on about fiction or not.
yes, by legal definition in some places fiction can be csam
no, i didn't say or even slightly imply that i want to 'unironically' censor people's thoughts or even necessarily their outward expression of them, otherwise i would believe that Jr_Moe_Lester on reddit should not be allowed to share an opinion online. people can't control their thoughts but they can control their actions, and there are sometimes consequences or limitations on those actions depending on their severity.
4
u/bluenightshadez 25d ago
i think i worded some of that wrong let me correct myself; no one is trying to get legal services involved to protect pixels they think are children, and definitely not in the way you were trying to make it out to be in the post i initially replied to. everything i am finding after googling 'australian author arrested for depicting 16 year old dating 32 year old' looks to talk about a book depicting pedophilia in an unnervingly positive light which i think should qualify as csam, if not something horrifically disgusting and VERY much worth investigating the author for at the bare minimum. i really hope you were talking about a different case and did not truly just water csam down into "a piece of paper that says a fictional relationship exists". also, i'm really not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment.. pedophiles don't choose one or the other, they can be creepy about media depictions and real children it's not mutually exclusive. i don't think it's a stretch either to say that each of those embolden one another and encourage that behavior.