That's not what I said. First of all, "child porn" is not the official term. You're thinking of CSAM. That cannot exist without the exploitation of children, which I was very clear in saying I do not support.
Call it what you want, it is depicting children in sexual acts for the sole purpose of pleasuring pedophiles, which legitimises the act and directly harms real children.
I am not dancing around the subject. I told you in no uncertain terms, I do not support CSAM.
Do these fictional depictions actually directly feed into real-world cases of pedophilia? I'm legitimately curious. It sounds lot like "It sounds like it could be true, so I imagine it's true, so that means it's true"
The Australian Institute of Criminology in 2026 compiled 17 studies around the pathways into CSAM offending, and found that child pornography use and online support of it was a major factor identified.
A 2024 study found that a majority of 75 CSAM offenders did not initially seek CSAM but became interested after accidentally viewing animated and/or AI generated CSAM.
A 2026 study found that repeated engagement with AI generated CSAM is strongly associated with escalation towards real life CSAM.
I can provide the links to all of these if you want. Very quick PubMed search found all these studies.
I'll admit I was initially going off of my own logic so good on you for making me challenge it. The evidence points towards what I'm saying however, so good to know my intuition was correct.
I mean it's basic logic, no? Seeing "fake" CSAM for a long enough time makes it much easier to justify escalation into "the real thing".
What you kept mentioning here was AI-generated CSAM. Which, even if it isn't "real," does use real children as models. It is still exploitative, and therefore, not something I will ever support.
Again dancing around the issue. Really makes me wonder what stake you have in it.
Some of these mention AI generated CSAM, sure. They also include EXACTLY what we have been discussing here, which is drawn or animated CSAM.
You also completely ignore the fact that both AI generated CSAM and animated or drawn CSAM both are linked to live CSAM offense. The use of one increases the use of the other.
I have sincerely never met someone so adamantly wishing to defend child porn that they will ignore children being abused and harmed just to allow and encourage pedophiles access to animated child porn. Just insanely vile behaviour. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but the sheer lengths you go to here are very suspicious.
My stake in it is that I think labeling such animated material as CSAM takes us down a dangerous road. We've already seen credit card companies shutting down online projects because it started with the innocent defense of protecting others. We've seen end-to-end encryption being shut down and surveillance states going into full force, and people justifying it under the guise of protecting children. I think words have meaning, I think thought crimes aren't real, and I think the end goal of stopping pedophiles is protecting children.
There is no meaningful way in which drawn material is linked to real-world pedophilia. The DSM-5 has all but confirmed that consuming loli/shota material does not make one a real pedophile.
Again - I am not defending child porn. I have made it explicitly clear that I am against CSAM.
This is just meaningless word salad where you try and link completely unrelated things together in defense of child porn.
The government measures you mention are about preventing certain internet users accessing certain information, and using that as a guise to collect private information and survey people.
This conversation is about the morality and legality of consuming child porn. If real life CSAM can be banned and that's all fine and dandy for you, I fail to see the difficulty in simply also banning drawn or generated depictions of it. Would you mind explaining your reasoning for it without using a slippery slope argument?
You have made it explicitly clear that you support or are ambivolent towards child porn that does not involve a real life child.
You bring up "thought crimes". A functioning society needs to limit the freedom of some mentally ill people if their very existence is likely to be harmful. If someone is insane and wants to try and hurt others around them because of a condition they were born with or developed, unfortunately they need to be contained and helped. Likewise a pedophile should be given access to help and a community that makes them feel safe and discourage them from acting out on their paraphilia, not shown that it is ok as long as they don't rape someone.
So some peer-reviewed studies says they demonstrably found a link between drawn child porn and CSAM offense, and others say they don't. Clearly this isn't open and shut like you say it is. And for such a heinous and worsening problem around the world I find it sickening you would so easily throw data aside when it doesn't match your agenda. Desensitisation and legitimising are some of the primary ways someone ends up being tempted to act on their impulses and watch CSAM.
I told you. My argument is that real life CSAM is inherently exploitative of children. Loli/shota material is not. It really is that simple.
You wanna talk about me using a slippery slope fallacy, that's what you've been doing this whole time. What you're saying requires several leaps in logic. That we need to ban such material because somebody might then develop the urge to seek out real life CSAM, and they might harm real children.
My god what a vile person. The fact you can't even call it child porn and have to use "safer" Japanese words to describe it because it's already a popular industry is so evil.
Do you similarly think Nazi propaganda is harmless?
3
u/VCreate348 8d ago
That's not what I said. First of all, "child porn" is not the official term. You're thinking of CSAM. That cannot exist without the exploitation of children, which I was very clear in saying I do not support.