They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.
what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child?
That’s my whole point, it makes all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn’t exist.
That’s why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways) Then again that’s why we watch fictional shows in the first place
I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
(Of course you are entitled to your feelings)
I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.
At least based on the actual psychology research on the topic, access to fictional material for masturbation purposes actually has shown to be the most effective method to prevent abusive urges and relapse.
Tho considering how hard it is to find funding and people willing to under go therapy it’s a struggle to find reliable data.
There was one of the leading experts in the topic that did an ask me anything a few years back.
Reddit ended up banning her and nuking the thread due to the topic. But it had a lot of research shared in it that now is locked up behind pay walls and basically buried deep.
I would need to see multiple, peer reviewed sources. It’s a very sensitive topic, but regardless, I don’t believe that that material should be floating around. Access it through a psychiatrist, or therapist.
It’s the same argument, that the character only looks like a child, but isn’t. I chose a hyperbolic example for emphasis, but it’s the same argument. It looks like a child. That’s the point.
They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.
That’s my whole point, it makes all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn’t exist.
That’s why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways) Then again that’s why we watch fictional shows in the first place
I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
(Of course you are entitled to your feelings)
I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.
At least based on the actual psychology research on the topic, access to fictional material for masturbation purposes actually has shown to be the most effective method to prevent abusive urges and relapse.
Tho considering how hard it is to find funding and people willing to under go therapy it’s a struggle to find reliable data.
There was one of the leading experts in the topic that did an ask me anything a few years back.
Reddit ended up banning her and nuking the thread due to the topic. But it had a lot of research shared in it that now is locked up behind pay walls and basically buried deep.
I would need to see multiple, peer reviewed sources. It’s a very sensitive topic, but regardless, I don’t believe that that material should be floating around. Access it through a psychiatrist, or therapist.
I haven’t made that argument
It’s the same argument, that the character only looks like a child, but isn’t. I chose a hyperbolic example for emphasis, but it’s the same argument. It looks like a child. That’s the point.