This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As probably the only person who will be bold enough to openly identify as an avowed pedophile (and hebephile, blah blah blah etc.; this post is already too long because of my natural penchant for tangents to get into the age-based sexuality ontology soup) in this conversation, I'll ask the fundamental question: Why go after lolicon at all? (I am basing this question on the many replies here along the lines of "Yeah I'm against censorship in general but this in particular is a good thing.")
We're going to masturbate to children, real and fictional.1 You know we are, and you can't stop us. We have been since the start of the Internet. The only ways that could realistically stop us would ruin society and technology for everyone else too (especially any dissidents).2
Wouldn't you rather it be the fictional ones, or at least more the fictional ones (for example, even if a pedo splits his time on 20% fictional/80% real children, wouldn't you rather it be that than 100% real)? It would be one thing if you really had managed to fully crack down on any sexualized content of real children online and fictional content was the only stuff left to police, but you haven't at all (not even the illegal stuff overall, and its legal counterpart far less). Do you really want us on Instagram instead of Pixiv? We can actually message the girls in the photos on there!
1. And, to make it clear up front and maybe forestall some of the pointless replies of a purely mindlessly emotionalized and moralistic character (usually marked ironically enough by the impotent and simplistic anger and disapproval characteristic of a child (not that I don't welcome angry and disapproving replies of an intellectual character more complex than "wtf die pedo", because I certainly do)) that this post will inevitably receive, a lot of you have masturbated to them too, unknowingly (or perhaps half-knowingly, deep down) or not, especially if you define "child" as anyone under the age of 18 (unless you are a major, dedicated, and unwavering MILF fetishist who never spares a single glance for any erotic content labeled "teen" of any variety ever, which realistically we all know most of us aren't).3
(That is, among other implications of the above, I often if not usually get quite a few PMs along the lines of "I'd never be bold enough to admit it publicly like you but I'm always masturbating to lolicon/child "models"/junior "idols"/"jailbait" [or younger]/etc. online too [with stuff like 'and I feel bad about it and you're the first similar person I've come across online discussing it' often appended]." from other users after I make posts like these on forums, just so you all know.)
(So, again, if you're planning on responding to this post with (also again, pointless and impotent (as I guarantee you that, as someone who used old early/mid-2000s 4chan in his tender years, you will not wound me with your words on a screen)) wrath, perhaps you might as well not bother knowing how many other worthy targets there are out there immune via stealth in any case to your "righteous" crusading. You'll only be weakly attacking one visible target, with many more flying under your radar, I assure you.)
(I also point this out to remind all readers that any "consensus" on something so taboo, with so much social coercion, pressure, and shaming applied, is always inherently fake or at least unverifiable (similarly to, and in a similar manner using similar methods, the "consensus" on "just being a decent fucking human being [and 'respecting' people's 'gender identities', acknowledging that 'Black Lives Matter', not 'policing' women's bodies, etc.]!" that woke advocates allege with similar slogans, just even stronger because it's bipartisan).)
2. That is, as pointed out by many others in this subthread, say goodbye to anything that isn't Cathedral-approved because they will gladly use the same censorship techniques on all of it (after promising you that they won't and they're just targeting the "worst of the worst" that you disapprove of too). In fact, though it's not widely known and thus not widely remarked upon, Big Tech to a large degree honed and perfected its early censorship techniques, long before it was seen as censorious by anyone, on pedophilic content (as I personally witnessed/experienced, that gradual realization that the website/computer was explicitly lying to you to hide things, again long before it applied politically).
Back when the "algorithm" was actually fully honest, there were regularly underage girls shaking their assets all over the front page, trending section, etc. of YouTube, for example (because they're a lot more popular than anyone wants to admit). Cleaning that situation up was, I believe, Big Tech's actual first foray into manipulating the narrative. And look where it's led. Why think it can't happen again and more?
3. This is in reference to all of the (100% verified, ages on their Instagrams with proof like dated photos from their 12th, 13th, etc. birthday(s) (though of course those ages are rarely spread alongside their content)) underage girls whose photos and TikToks in skimpy miniskirts, bikinis, etc. are stealthily spread all over porn sites, Reddit, etc., as if it were 18+ content.
(Though I don't think "normies" actually care as much as they pretend to if a girl on their screen really is 18+, as long as she's hot, especially since some of these girls, despite their bodies/presentation, still have obviously pretty neotenous faces.
(There's also probably/certainly some element of deluding themselves involved too though, something perhaps like "I'm sexually attracted to her, someone who is sexually attracted to underage girls is a bad person, and I'm not a bad person, so she can't be underage." For example, I've had people still straight up deny that a girl they find attractive is underage after linking them her 12th birthday celebration Instagram post on her official account clearly dated from 2 years ago.))
I do appreciate getting a comment from such a rare...perspective. I guess I'd like to say that I'm not even all that concerned with legit pedos, in that I don't think they're even all that common enough to justify the ban.
You reference YouTube videos of kids being used as..."material," and I would like to point out that people did Notice that, eventually.
They definitely did and (ironically enough) implemented reforms that made things even easier for the hardcore collectors (though YouTube has been naturally superseded anyway for this kind of material by TikTok/Instagram due to the low attention span of your average modern young female, inevitably driving them there).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The "I'm actually very confident and inevitable!!" insistence rings a bit hollow when the only thing you end up actually expressing is the same set of stock excuses every guilty man craps out to talk others out of punishing him. "W-wait, they're coming for you next!!" isn't a convincing case when some weakman bluehairs use it to justify freeing convicted rapists to prevent repressive capitalist state apparatus from destroying the global working class, and it's even less convincing from a "guy" who doesn't even have enough balls to directly defend those perversions he loudly pretends to believe aren't a big deal. You're not "bold," you're a basic degenerate e-begging for just enough reluctant validation to avoid the (entirely correct) conclusion that he must soon apply millstone to neck, and that you have to do it by fearmongering the board into adopting a position of political and organizational impotence, before the fear that their enemies might possibly challenge them to control some expression of political power, should make that much plain. I doubt that big spiel about "le moralism" must be a big comfort to someone who spends his life running like a roach to hide under the fridge whenever someone turns the lights on, but I guess I really can't expect much better; after all, being a pathetic manipulator is the evergreen face of noncery.
In your heart, you know it's right.
Yeah unfortunately I'm in agreement with the moderator below (rare for me) that I don't really know much what to make of your rant other than that you are very mad. But I will say this:
It just hasn't come up in this limited scope conversation (that happened to be what I responded to) yet (as I really only made one simple, small inquiry and it is only my penchant for tangents as mentioned previously which naturally opened up other avenues of discussion), but if you want the full scope of my opinion I will tell you: I believe that the feminine should exist somewhere in a state between wardship and sexual (and otherwise) chattel slavery/property in relation to the masculine. This view naturally accommodates little in the way of valuing modern "consent", much less an age of it, same as the government doesn't/can't (rightfully) tell you that your TV has to be X number of years old before you can watch it, hence explaining my expressed views thus far.
(I do separately believe in the righteousness, correctness, mental healthiness, and beauty of the appreciation of the young female form as a natural masculine birthright, that it is superior to its opposite (that is, I am still an avowed pedo/hebephile, etc. as well as previously claimed), but this post is already long and as my opinion that there are no just grounds for prohibiting something tautologically explains a lack of support for its prohibition, I will save the promotion/exaltation of it for another time.)
(And as a separate disclaimer given some obvious but incorrect implications that might be derived from the above, of course I am not (from my perspective) a monster and just as I don't believe anyone should arbitrarily destroy/damage their TV or especially, for example, their dogs (for no reason anyway) who I do recognize as sentient beings with feelings, I grant the same consideration to sentient feminine entities (so long as they are in a state of behavioral correctness, just as you can put your dog down or at least whack them for uncontrollably biting people), but that still doesn't change the nature of them as fundamentally justly subservient and thus rightfully subject to a broad latitude of control by their owning/possessing entity. (And yes for the record I think women and girls would be on balance much happier in this hypothetical society.))
That is, I am certainly no "NOMAP" or "virtuous pedophile" or any such nonsense (though I have tactically abstained from most that is illegal in this area throughout my life, recognizing sadly that this is unfortunately not a time period conducive to the true, proper, and full expression of masculinity with the little consequence it deserves) and certainly had no intention of representing myself as such.
To enforce the above (among other common desires on the far right wishlist, like certain racial hygiene initiatives, eugenics, etc.), I believe that a strong, fascist-esque (that is, probably a bit more organized, a bit more bureaucratic and technocratic under the hood, lots of marching and paeans to vigor and masculinity still, great aesthetics you know, but better planning to ensure it all lasts, a bit of Disneyland magic at times except for higher purposes (just to address preemptively the most sensible/common criticism of fascism as a whole that it inevitably burns itself out in its ardent fervor)) society should be constituted. I like to call this "pedofascism" as it is a catchy, provocative name that gets people talking, though I haven't posted online much about it yet as I post online a lot less than I used to in general.
From my perspective, none of this is the shady, seedy underbelly of society that can only be excused through feeble pleas to left-wing "tolerance" (as you seem to be implying I believe) or "Yeah but they'll come for you next!" (though these are true arguments to a degree and thus permissible for use in many circumstances) but rather the natural and inevitable state of a truly fully masculine society at full power (which is not to say that such a society is inevitable). Its opponents, in my view, are those who are the degenerates and enemies of masculinity, as well meaning as many of them are in regards to thinking themselves the opposite.
To me, the creepy, unnerving connotations of "noncery" intuitively far more apply to those who would deny themselves a vigorous expression of their natural sexual desire for the young, fresh, and unblemished (as almost every proper man should inevitably prefer or at least strongly desire to some degree per basic evolutionary logic) because of what is essentially a campaign of feminist subversion. (Age of consent law campaigning was basically the first act of modern feminism, even before the "earning" the vote or prohibition.) That is, to me you are the ones scurrying "under the fridge" like "roach[es]" (in even more pitiable/contemptible fear of your own inner "light").
So no, I am not a "guilty man" in regards to my preferences/bluntness in embracing them in this area. I am ashamed, but primarily only of the weakness of my fellow men in regards to not joining me as is their birthright, would they have the will to enforce it. (My appeal against "moralism" is only an appeal against what is to me only false, hysterical, and feminine moralism. To appeal to a genuinely higher justice is no crime.)
(To be clear, the endorsement of the enjoyment of feminine varieties of any age as a natural masculine right would in fact actually be only a small (though essential, as you can't and obviously don't have a fully, properly patriarchal society in its absence (even discounting how it already acted as a canary in the coalmine on the subject the first(?) time as previously mentioned), same as you don't really have TV freedom if you can only watch older TVs) part of the character of my ideal society. Any seeming emphasis on it now is only because it is nevertheless a heavy controversy now, same as heliocentrism was once a heavily controversial position that required hard-won acceptance, even though, as unthinkably to its opponents then as it is now to people like you that the acceptance of age freedom for masculine sexuality wouldn't be that big of a deal, it's not that big of a deal for us, something we fully endorse based on clear logic and observation but not something that we worship/emphasize unduly.
That is, we are not really a heliocentrist society despite accepting heliocentrism fully and without reservation and mine would not necessarily be a pedophilic/etc. society per se (depending on how enduring the "pedofascist" label is) despite accepting it similarly (or rather dismantling the flawed (mostly feminist, progressive, etc., even if they disguise or deny that nature) ideological lenses that I believe could only ever be used as the grounds to mandate its prohibition, thus leaving no justification), just in case you try the usual gambit of insisting that my apparent "obsession" with the subject must nevertheless reveal some inherent and disqualifying flaw in my psychology. It is only because this is a society of (knowingly or not) feminism-influenced "geocentrists" that I must debate or think about the issue at all; in an ideal society the proper nature of things would already be in place and there would be little more reason to consider it than the tides: purely for the impractical joy of thought if at all.)
So, with that all established, you must understand that, assuming you're somewhat more on the right since you called me a "basic degenerate", from my perspective the "basic [and clearly media/Cathedral-brainwashed on this subject, at least in my view] degenerate" here is you, that you are aligned with the bluehairs (at least about this subject) that you are so worried about (or so you believe, carrying their water here as you are), etc. (In case you maybe thought you would somehow intimidate me with your austere hard line on degeneracy, millstones around necks, tough guy South Park suicide clip stuff? I want the same; your agecuckoldry (used as non-derisively as possible) is just to me included in that realm of "degeneracy", on the same level and part of the same phenomenon as the general intolerable feminization of men and society.)
Or, more succinctly, this tweet pair gets at similar ideas: https://twitter.com/Burgerpunk2077/status/1556021799011307520
For further elaboration of a similar viewpoint (as it is a somewhat novel one and thus I will assume that more examples for familiarization are uniquely helpful for the reader's understanding of it), see this /pol/ classic from ~2017 or so: https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1508/05/1508054159980.png (Obviously this little manifesto was not written to conform to the etiquette this board so click at your own risk; it is provided merely as an illustrative artifact of digital anthropology.)
Is this enough "balls" for you then in regards to being very clear about what I endorse? I can elaborate more. It just requires some groundwork since (again, reading this into your post, could be wrong), you seem to be assuming that I'm somewhere to the left of you, when, from my perspective, I am in fact far to the right of you. You are, at least in many ways, my globalist, modernist, progressive bogeyman (especially as your kind is so often completely convinced that you have fully aligned yourself against them, you are in a way more unacceptable to me).
This all of course strays far from the original subject of this subthread, but you accused me of the impropriety/dishonor of being indirect/subversive about my beliefs (which must be considered permissible as a tactical necessity at the least among enemies or other risks to one's freedom, but I won't classify a mostly open intellectual venue as such at the moment), so an infodump
"no, u mad" followed by 1.6 thousand words are quite good evidence I hit my mark and a nerve.
Millstone.
I realize it may be pointless to reply while you're banned, but I have to ask what the heck "millstone" is supposed to refer to, because you've used it here the same way 4Channers say "dilate" to transwomen.
Matthew 18:6 or Mark 9:42 or Luke 17:2, which each say about the same thing. Paraphrasing, "better to tie a millstone around your neck, and be cast into the deepest sea, than to lead a child into sin." In context, it's not specific to pedophilia, more of a general injunction against corrupting innocence in children, but pedophilia is generally considered the extreme case of a violation against this stricture.
Huh. I'd picked up that it was a "kill yourself", but I didn't notice the Bible reference. Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do not be deliberately antagonistic, this was right after another mod warning. 5 day ban.
More options
Context Copy link
You accused me of being indirect about my beliefs, I explained them in great detail (certainly not because you "struck a nerve" as in fact I've had this all on the tip of my digital tongue for a while and you gave me a good excuse to let it all out, though you obviously aren't worthy of its debut), and your response is nothing more than mindless, simplistic Reddit-style snark. Unless you wish to reform your behavior in a less (cattily and frivolously, not even embodying their occasional virtues) feminine direction, this is the part where I dismiss you as a man and move on. You may have permission to address me again as a fellow man (assuming you identify as one) when you have developed a proper intellectual backbone.
Edit:
His original post was:
His latest edit is obviously a response to a suggestion of the opposite. In any case:
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whose nerve has thus been struck. Hopefully if anybody sees it some will enjoy my response to him regardless, as its length is a reflection of my desire to communicate the material, not to address such a generically discontented individual (who I've naturally encountered some close variation of probably hundreds of times prior).
As I ironically enough mentioned in my initial response to him:
Cattiness, passive aggressiveness, and an incapability of enduring direct challenge without ragequitting (and of course inevitably doing a modern faux-indifferent/casual "But I'm not mad! I'm not owned! You are!" routine along the way) are all of course included in this. I think I hit the nail on the head.
Edit 2:
And shall we add irresoluteness and indecision? As they say: "lmao."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For whatever reason despite being under the character limit my post appears to be cut off to me. In any case the last line is:
(If I had known this would happen despite heavy editing to bring it under the character limit I would have made the above a two-parter anyway so please do excuse any space-saving measures such as the overuse of conjunction via forward slash and the generally less varied diction.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is pure namecalling.
I gave the OP some slack for taking an unpopular (to put it mildly) position, and I'll give his critics some slack because it's obviously an extremely emotive topic, but you still don't have a license to ignore the rules and be as antagonistic as you want just because you really hate what someone is expressing.
No, it's not pure namecalling, I pointed to a specific substantive and conduct problem with OP while namecalling him: It's one thing if some honest ignorant person really doesn't get that pedophilia is wrong, it's another if the main thrust of a person's post (history, based on some comments on another thread) amounts to flaunting his pedophilia and making vague allusions to auxiliary issues for plausible deniability. I don't plan to revisit this issue outside of complaints to staff, but it's extremely hard to understand why you think namecalling is the problem next to that.
Well, next time leave the namecalling out.
Because we don't allow namecalling. You are allowed to criticize people's behavior and beliefs. You are not allowed to personally insult them. Yes, that even applies to pedophiles, Nazis, tankies, wokes, Bills fans, and whoever else you hate the most with a pure and righteous hate. If you cannot engage without personal attacks, do not engage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
[insert sufficient grumblings about pedophilia is bad] I do agree that drawn material is a better and less harmful alternative given my understanding of the likely consequences and find banning it ridiculous. That said, the non-drawn stuff is actively horrible both because consumption can fuel production, which is the source of an incredible amount of human suffering, and because of the harm done to people attempting to live after abuse by knowing a memorial of their abuse is circulating for all time among pedophiles. Keep the nonhuman stuff, even ai generated stuff but real stuff is an abomination.
More options
Context Copy link
Lots of interesting comments are pointing out that CP, including potentially lollicon, can sway the "marginal" pedophile. Do we have any evidence true marginal pedophiles exist? I'm not talking about those who have urges but don't act because of incentives, but sleeper-agent types who would develop urges if they sufficiently engaged with the idea or pornographic content.
My impression had always been that true paedophilia was some kind of mental illness that was much more binary and that "marginal pedophiles" were rare. People who are attracted to teenagers (Ephebophiles?) would fall into a different camp, which would be a lot less binary and have many marginal members.
I'm not basing this model on any real knowledge, but if seems to me the anecdotes of people being molested are usually about younger children, not teenagers. If marginal pedophiles were a major concern, I'd expect higher frequencies of molestation in older children/teenagers.
The answer to this is complex. My short answer is something like "Basically almost everyone is a 'marginal' pedophile [though this ideally would receive a lot of elaboration], but it's not worth worrying about media 'swaying' them because possessing any sexual attraction bandwidth that is seriously dedicated to children is usually only a small part of their motivation if any."
I wouldn't expect that myself necessarily. People who are attracted to "older children/teenagers" are not "marginal pedophiles"; they are simply ephebophiles/hebephiles. They're different brands of sexuality, perhaps interrelated to some degree especially at the age margins where they overlap, but one is not a "marginal" version of the other. The guy who is not attracted to a 14 year old (and by "guy" in this case, the case of being attracted to an objectively sexually attractive 14 year old, I mean essentially every guy alive) is not expressing a "marginal" version of an attraction to an 8 year old (which has less universal of an uptake as it is of a wholly different character).
Putting aside people who are bona-fide pedophile and are attracted to actual children, it sounds like in your model, (e?)phebophillia is a more of a fetish or a preference. I do think porn can exacerbate, and even create fetishes/preferences, at least temporarily. So it seems the marginal aspect is a valid concern.
On the other hand, I doubt people with porn-induced/enhanced phebophilia are that much more likely to engage in morally problematic behaviour with minors.
Lollicon probably appeals to an even wider audience who like anime and hentai. Because the visuals are so unrealistic I doubt it's harmful. I don't think anyone is developing a significant bestiality fetish from the wacky stuff often portrayed in hentai (cat-people, tentacles, etc.) and I don't see why lollicon would be any different with respect to pedophilia.
I'm kind of confused by your response. Let me clarify:
A. I don't know what "phebophilia" is. It's just "ephebophilia". (Hebephilia, if that confused you, is a different thing, the next youngest age bracket.)
B. My model is definitely not that ephebophilia is a mere fetish. Ephebophilia, for a refresher, is the sexual attraction to older teens, around 15-17 (the arbitrary cut off for it only because of the common legal age of consent, even though I'd say that being sexually attracted to a 17 year old is far more similar to being sexually attracted to a 20 year old than a 12 year old or even a 14 year old).
My model is that this is essentially universal (at least and especially among men) if not the default ideal and strongest preference (in the absence of social pressure, mostly from women), because there is zero reason that we would evolve to not be sexually attracted to perfectly (and freshly, more unblemished ones, thus arguably superior) fertile humans right next to us (and history proves that's not the case) just because future people millions of years later would decide that the age of 18 is the correct arbitrary cutoff for sexual autonomy. Porn cannot probably "exacerbate" ephebophilia any more than fast food commercials can "exacerbate" your need to eat food to live or your inherent desire to do so with greasy high-fat/high-carb junk food (which is maybe some via exposure effects (though this is likely to more just affect particular brand preference as opposed to preference for the entire underlying category), availability heuristics, etc., but it's still not in any way rewiring your fundamental preferences as opposed to just appealing to them).
(A simple proof of this is the massive popularity of "barely legal" pornography, girls who "just turned" 18, and the overwhelming popularity otherwise of young girls, particularly (legal) teens, in porn, relative to their percentage of the overall female population. That is, men already park their erotic preferences pretty much as absolutely close to the legal line as they can, suggesting that they'd have no issue going lower if it were more legal/frictionless (and actively want to). If I'm pressed up against the doors of a store, that's evidence that I want to get in when it opens, not that I want to stay pressed up against the doors. It's just that this one door isn't budging.)
To elaborate on my prior analogy: McDonald's does not make people desire unhealthy food; our brains are wired to crave unhealthy food and McDonald's simply provides it. Maybe a McDonald's commercial shifts things psychologically on the margins somewhat, erodes your willpower to have a healthy salad instead by reminding you that the dark side exists, but if McDonald's didn't advertise at all, they'd maybe lose 2-10% of their business max (which still makes it more than worth their while to pay for them), not 100% or even likely 80%. The desire, which necessarily precedes the object that grants its fulfillment (otherwise nobody would have any reason to produce the object), would still exist.
The same is true of any erotic stimuli and ephebophilia. Maybe it can make you more likely to actively think "Hey, I'd like to fuck [a/that] 15 year old." in any given moment, but it can't put the desires/neurology/psychology producing that thought in your head (as proven by the fact that equivalently seductively produced content of a toilet or a banana isn't likely to make anybody who didn't have those thoughts before suddenly think they want to fuck a toilet or banana). Nature did that. (And if you see in real life a sexually attractive 15 year old, your probability of thinking "I want to fuck her." isn't likely going to be affected by prior/recent exposure to sexualized content of 15 year olds any more than your probability of accepting a free greasy burger in real life that's suddenly offered to you is going to be by whether you've seen a fast food burger commercial recently (which is again probably maybe some, but again not in any that alters the underlying inherent calculus much).)
Calling it a fetish is like saying people have a "food fetish" for McDonald's. That's obviously not the case.
Thanks for explaining, that does makes sense and is pretty convincing. People who consume the barely legal type porn are definitely marginal ephebophiles, if not full-blown ones.
There's definitely variation among people's taste, though. In my view, someone could have a "youthful" fetish the same way they have a mature/milf or an asian fetish. I suppose whether these are "fetishes" or not is a terminological debate, but I certainly did not have your view pinned down until you explained it.
There is, but it seems transparently obvious to me based on all of the data about the subject that in the statistical distribution of age-based attraction those who prefer the young/"barely legal" teens/etc. vastly outnumber those who prefer the old/MILFS/etc. (again at least among men).
Can somebody have a "youthfulness" fetish? I think they can have a fetish for the perceived social paraphernalia of youthfulness (which to me explains the distinction between ageplaying, which is genuinely a fetish as you describe I believe, and youth-oriented chronophilias), but to say that they have a fetish for youthfulness itself seems as nonsensical to me as saying someone has a "fetish" for symmetry or pertness or fair skin (all traits commonly enhanced by youthfulness).
The extreme ends of youth-oriented chronophilia could perhaps be explained/characterized as a "fetish" for neoteny (and I believe they are explained by simply having a higher-than-average genetic preference for neoteny), but this is so fundamental that "orientation" describes to me more accurately the character of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Empirical findings from places and times where CP was legal suggest it depresses sex offences.
I think it's fairly obvious why this is true. Porn use lowers male interest in pursuing women by satiating the sex drive.
We could even test this shit by conscripting a large enough sample of students, assigned some of them to jacking off more off and then noted who was more active in dating.
More options
Context Copy link
This to me is the crux of the issue. I see as much reason to believe that easy access to lolicon would lead to some marginal pedophile to sexually abuse a child as to believe that Dave Chappelle's stand up bit would lead to some marginal transphobe to physically/verbally abuse a trans person. As such, I support as little restriction on one as I do the other. Supporting one but not the other seems to me to reflect more of a difference in one's own disgust reactions - and the justifications that follow those - than the underlying reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're certainly not the only person, but it's not a particularly common perspective around here.
Then I guess I'll have to claim the mantle of only pedofascist unless you want to sign up as a comrade. Cute stories about being pedopilled though.
You're more than welcome to that claim. I'm also glad you found the stories "cute", even if you don't seem to appreciate cuteness.
Who says?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's the same person, see the nested paren use.
See my second link. Even if OP is FPHthrowawayB under a different name, there is at least one other person who has openly identified as a pedophile here (ie, me).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a very common failure to think on the margin; it most typically shows up when people are discussing drug prohibition. Yes, we all agree that prohibiting drugs/CP/murder is not going to actually eliminate it. Some people are still going to find a way to get drugs/CP or to murder other people. These are known as "high-value users". There are some people who will go to extreme measures to get that next hit, get that next picture, or to kill that one bastard. They may do so even if we make the (potential) costs high. (Note that there are some differences in effect of increasing direct costs vs potential costs, though legal sanctions can affect both.)
You may personally be a high-value CP user. We have high-value drug users in these threads. I don't know that we've had high-value murderers in these threads, but they do exist. We may not be successful in dissuading you from pursuing what you value so highly. We may or may not catch you and actually impose the potential costs. The societal value of making such laws does not hinge on that. This has been known for centuries.
Setting aside the other possible justifications for punishing you, specifically, there is societal value in increasing the costs for others, who might have a somewhat lower-value on the behavior than you do, perhaps to the point that they simply choose not to engage in the behavior. This comes in the form of people thinking, "Yeah, I kinda like kids, but do I really want to go to all the trouble of figuring out these VPNs, cryptocurrencies, etc., and then still run the risk of getting caught? Probably not," or, "Yeah, I kinda like drugs, but do I really want to go to all the trouble to deal with the criminal culture, pay high prices, and still run the risk of getting caught or getting an adulterated product that may kill me? I guess I'll just drink some whisky," or, "Yeah, I super super hate this guy, and if anyone ought to get killed, it's him, but do I really want to go through the trouble of trying to plan out how to do it without getting trivially caught, yet still run the risk of something going wrong and ending up behind bars for the rest of my life? Probably not."
Some people will ask themselves those questions and answer, "Yes, absolutely," instead of, "Probably not." But in the meantime, we'll have a lot less CP, a lot less drug usage, and a lot less murder. For the few of you who go ahead and do it, we can figure out what mix of the other justifications for punishment will be most beneficial to you and society.
Okay but I wasn't asking about CP prohibitions (which I'm mostly against for other reasons, but I recognize your argument). Isn't the availability of fictional sexualized content of children like lolicon one of the methods you speak of to increase costs of CP consumption (as it's less justifiable and thus more costly to pursue it at risk if there's a semi-decent substitute with far less risk attached)?
My point is that if you pursue lolicon as content to be eliminated like you pursue CP, then you completely eliminate that benefit to whatever degree you pursue it (same for legal but sexualized content of actual children, but I understand there are different arguments involved there), which doesn't make much sense given that they're fictional characters with zero genuine need for emotional/physical/etc. protection in any case.
That is, even the diehard anti-CP advocate has little reason to attack it.
Almost all CP is distributed freely so you would almost never have to figure this out unless you want really new/rare/etc. stuff. I just thought I'd make a note of that.
There's no economic argument for how it would increase the cost of CP consumption. It simply lessens the cost of something that some might consider a substitute.
In any event, another thing about drug prohibition is that science/society has basically no clue what actually causes the transition to being an addict (which usually comes with many harms, to oneself and others). Obviously, we know that if you never try a drug, you don't become an addict. Some portion of folks who try don't become addicted, but some portion does (this can happen via an intermediate, legal drug, too, like prescription opioids). Best as we can tell, it's pretty much a Poisson process. That means that it scales with the number of people who start using. Also, once a person transitions to being an addict, it seems that we have basically no clue how to rehabilitate them. (See Scott's old old old post about how abysmal rehab programs are.) There is a very reasonable end conclusion that we should simply reduce the number of initial users. It just seems implausible that we could flood the market with cheap, legal opioids and somehow not cause some folks to get addicted.
Similarly, lots of folks find it pretty implausible that we can flood the market with cheap fake child porn and not cause some number of people, who wouldn't have ever even started wanking down that path, to end up abusing kids.
IF we could just isolate people who were already going to consume CP and, in a targeted fashion, with no spillover effects, provide fake CP as a substitute, then sure, that'd be a plausible thing to try. That would be the like, "Give people methadone at rehab," kind of solution, not the, "Give out prescription opioids like candy to the masses," kind of solution.
I would be interested to know more about how this works. Seems like great risk to share, and so folks would want something in return. The indictments I have read support this, as most sites in those indictments make access contingent on regularly uploading fresh content.
Lessening the cost of a (partial) substitute is essentially the inverse of/same as raising the (relative, which is always relative) cost of its competitor. If competitor A lowers its price from $10 to $5, then competitor B still at $10 costs more (again relatively, but that's how people reason) even though it hasn't changed its price at all.
I don't think this opioid analogy works at all. The widespread distribution of opioids is dangerous because a response to them is universally built into the human brain. They don't become dangerous because they're widespread and your brain doesn't get "propagandized" or incentivized via a mere exposure effect/bias into liking them; they simply are effective because they directly target basic human neurology. You can not know what an opioid is at all and still be affected by it. You can think it looks dumb, smells dumb, whatever, and still be affected by it. It's not like media exposure.
Let me ask you, if there were more widespread distribution of (fake or otherwise) positive/indulgent depictions of the brutal murder of puppies, do you think people would:
A. be horrified or at least strongly disapprove of it, no matter how long this campaign went on.
B. be slowly convinced via exposure that maybe murdering puppies might be fun.
(You could also use (literally) eating shit, being castrated, and any other fully unpleasant phenomenon as an example to plug in to the same formula.)
I think the answer is obviously A. Media becomes/is widespread (in the absence of exogenous manipulation) fundamentally because it appeals to inherent preferences, not because it alters them via being more and more widespread itself in a cyclical effect. (I think it can do this especially in the immediate to some degree, but the effects are indirect and obviously limited based on the example. I wrote some other replies on this that might elaborate more.)
That is, nobody is ever worried that depictions of animal violence are going to suddenly explode in popularity and cause a wave of animal cruelty. Why is this? It seems pretty clear to me that it's because we all know there's not really any widespread desire in the general population to randomly do innocent animals harm that is just waiting to be unlocked. So why would we be worried about sexual depictions of minors if, like those who commit animal cruelty, those who are attracted to them are only a small, sick, and twisted minority...? The implication is obvious: they're not.
And given that, perhaps instead of trying to offload the issue into a matter of exposure (which is obviously an artificial excuse given the above puppy murder example), we should reckon with the clear, strong, and inherent preferences of the general population that are subtly revealed by our own fear of them. That is, we should stop living in fantasy land and address the underlying issue, which is why I think your whole point is really orthogonal to the truth because it is based in a fundamental self-deception.
Mostly how you works is that you sign up to a forum (with a username, password, maybe a fake e-mail address (if the admins are too lazy to find out how to disable this requirement in their forum software)) using standard forum software and there it all is in various categories/threads (uploaded to Javascript-free filehosters that tend to take it down, so it may not all actually be there, but the latest posted stuff usually is). It's pretty simple once you get on Tor and find the URLs (the hardest part, though you only need to find one directory URL that links everything else). You're not getting the absolute newest or rarest stuff this way usually but with a decades-long history of content there's plenty on offer.
It's not much of a risk (legally a bit more sure, but that only applies if you get caught) unless you're the one in it. If you're anonymizing your connection, then uploading is no different than downloading (that is, there's no technically reason to believe that one is more easily detectable).
Some sites do this, or have subsections accessible only for consistent uploaders and/or producers, and my explanation for this being more common in indictments is that those who regularly upload "fresh content" (that is, in many cases content potentially containing identifiable information about themselves) are far more likely to get caught.
No. This is econ 101. In fact, in the most simplistic case of substitutes, the price of B actually goes down. There is literally no sense in which its price goes up. ("Relatively" doesn't count.)
You present this as if it would be an advertising campaign. That probably wouldn't work, but that's not how it would work, anyway. What would work is slowly normalizing it through the marginal people. The ones who are already a little off, a little predisposed to violence and weird, twisted shit. And if you forcibly make the people who want to shut that down desist (while simultaneously running a propaganda campaign in universities about how we should maybe be more sensitive to the reasonable needs of such people), then you're brewing a recipe for disaster.
So yeah, if we flood the market with cheap puppy murder, we're going to get more puppy murder. Some people will obviously be horrified, but so long as your propaganda campaign can at least prevent them from taking political action against the flood of cheap puppy murder, we're gonna get more puppy murder. I don't understand how else you can possibly think this would work.
So if Wendy's halves its prices, then the relative cost of choosing McDonald's instead doesn't go up? If paper towel brand A halves its price, there is no increase in the cost, psychological, opportunity, however you want to frame it, of buying paper towel brand B at the same old price of both instead?
I'm not sure what "econ 101" you took (certainly not the same as mine) but it has zero relevance to how people actually behave in the real world. Or economics for that matter. Economics is all about resource allocation, which is all about behavior, which means relative comparisons always matter. Denying this is about the same as denying that the sky is blue.
I don't believe this, or at least I don't believe it will work equivalently. As I pointed out in another comment:
If both taboos are equally ripe for normalization in the same fashion, then how do you explain the disparity in their "natural" popularity?
"Relative" doesn't count. The cost of McDonald's stays the same or possibly goes down in response.
Did you literally just skip the part of the course on substitute goods?
"Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit." It always surprises me to see that people willingly choose to just deny the mathematics of economics when it conflicts with their political commitments. It probably shouldn't, but it still does.
Who claimed this? I didn't.
The relative cost (as in to the consumer)/price does not stay the same, as it is, well, relative and thus incapable of staying the same in relation to another changing quantity (that is, changes in relative comparisons here are not consensually initiated, same as in every other area). McDonald's does quite potentially have a natural incentive to lower their own prices as a result, but it is not a part of the hypothetical that it does. (Keep in mind that in the original point of the analogy "McDonald's" actually represents real child porn here, which is legally incapable of lowering its "cost/price" (in terms of risk etc.) on its own initiative.)
Did you? I mean there are dozens of ways I could phrase what you're blatantly wrong about in econ 101 terms: that McDonald's and Wendy's share a cross-price elasticity which means that the price of one naturally affects the demand of the other, that Wendy's lowering its price means that the opportunity cost of eating at McDonald's has gone up and the marginal utility of each dollar spent at Wendy's has also gone up, etc., but there's not really any point to that, since, again, it's basic logic, and also basic economics, that a reduction in price increases the quantity demanded.
Relative cost/price is just one way of recognizing this effect in relation to competitors (which again is barely even economic in character as relative comparisons are, also again, basic matters of logical and quantitative analysis that even Fat Tony understands when he does his grocery shopping). (So if I have stated the case previously in less economic terms that seem to superficially contradict the previous, it is only because such a basic issue quite frankly does not require the application of economic reasoning to be resolved.)
I normally simply link Wikipedia articles here to go "Remember this thing?" as opposed to actually recommending them for reading, but I think you might be genuinely served by reading this Wikipedia article as you seem to severely misunderstand the concept.
Or maybe this graph can explain:
Is that clear enough?
This would be a fine remark if what you were saying here wasn't actually what blatantly denied the "mathematics of economics". I will definitely await you finding an economist to endorse your quite frankly bizarre perspective that ratios (which I always considered a pretty well-accepted and established expressions of quantity, self-proving as they are) either don't exist or somehow magically aren't relevant to the consumer optimization that helps generate demand curves, but I have a feeling that I will be waiting a long time.
But yes, it surprises me too, especially on a forum like this, especially when there doesn't seem to be much of a rhetorical point other than... illogic? Innumeracy? I'm genuinely not trying to be uncharitable but I don't know how else to characterize your denial of basic a priori reality here. Seriously, what's going on big guy? How did you develop this odd misconception that prices cannot be compared relatively or that the comparison is behaviorally/economically meaningless and that this is all in fact somehow backed up by academic economics? Who managed to convince you that relative comparison is irrelevant to economics, and what was their reasoning? I'm genuinely curious. Perhaps I'm being trolled? Or you were? Those aren't rhetorical questions. I seriously don't know.
To me, you seemed to be claiming it. In any case I'm glad we agree then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only few hundred years ago, animal cruelty was universally popular pastime. Burning cats alive was public entertainment and clubbing small animals to death was wholesome family fun for royalty and aristocracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat-burning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_tossing
Maybe your idea of human nature needs updating?
You have a good point. It was not my intention to say that animal cruelty is completely outside of the realm of human nature.
And yet my point also holds true. Animal cruelty videos abound online, yet very few people seem to be worried that they're going to erase, alter, or blur the taboo about it or "unlock" something in people that makes them find it appealing again. (And I still stand by the notion that this common wisdom is correct. After all, animal cruelty videos are probably less popular online than sexualized content of minors despite more legal and accessible. If it is really in human nature to find cruel animal deaths family fun, then why aren't people having fun with the greatest compendium of them in existence?) Yet a lot of people seem very worried about that in regards to sexualization of minors. It seems to me like one taboo is "harder" than the other.
My theory to explain this is that the evolution of the taboo against animal cruelty came with the gradual acceptance of the reality that animals are equivalently sentient (but not sapient) to humans, can feel pain, etc. (if you recall, even thinkers as prominent as Descartes used to completely reject that notion not too distantly in the past) and that people pretty much actually fully believe that. I think it's also that people may have found it fun, but weren't particularly tempted to do it on a raw, biological level, making it a lot easier to give it up.
So basically while it was perfectly within the Average Joe's nature to sadistically (not that they thought it was) torture animals because it produced visually amusing reactions in them, it stopped being so once they realized that their reactions of pain were not simply mechanistic reflexes but actually the same kind of pain they themselves might experience (since your average person I don't think is much of an inherent sadist/sociopath). You can see this in how people pretty much still have no problem stomping insects vigorously because most people do not believe on an empirical basis that they are capable of feeling pain like humans and more complex animals.
(This is similarly to how medical professionals used to not provide anesthesia for babies because they thought they didn't feel pain. Do you imagine that parents sanctioning the torture of their own offspring is common in our nature or that they legitimately just believed that?)
With minor sexualization etc. it seems to me like it must be the opposite then. People must not really fully believe that much in the nebulous collection of beliefs that supposedly puts minors beyond sexual availability (even and especially since they themselves regularly ignore this and try to make themselves sexually available, including to adults), and they do have a biological urge for it which makes it harder to just give it up than casual animal cruelty.
So I do think your point in fact overall supports mine, given the divergent ways that the two taboos have developed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except that the primary question here is the banning or lolicon, drawings of fake children. If the marginal low-value user you're deterring is exclusively looking at drawings while the high-value users look at real CP then you're not actually accomplishing anything by reducing the marginal users. Assuming the goal is to prevent exploitation of real children, rather than preventing perverts from getting off because they're gross.
The argument that actually matters here is whether lolicon acts as as gateway to real CP, converting marginal users into higher-value over time, or as a substitute that reduces real CP use/production. I can think of reasonable arguments in both directions, but am not really sure which is really true.
No, the primary question is whether this is behavior that we as a society want to see normalized. "loli" is just the thin edge of the wedge for those who want to add a 'P' to LGBTQ, and get their stripe on the pride flag.
I don't see any meaningful distinction between the pedos and anyone else on the LGBTQ flag except the potential exploitation and harm of actual children. They're weird sexual fetishes that make the individual happy if they can fulfill it, but strays from the biological purpose of actual reproduction, and disgusts 90%+ of the population who don't share that fetish.
My stance on non-offending pedos, ones who look at drawings of cartoon children but would never harm a child in real life, is basically the same as for anyone else with a weird fetish: keep it to yourself. Do whatever you want alone in your bedroom, but I don't want to hear about it or have you mainstream it. Stay out of public, don't go on parades about it. But this doesn't require banning them from all art websites, just have a strong tagging/filtering system so normal people don't have to see it unless they opt in.
But I think it very much matters when actual children are involved, because that is evil behavior with massive harm. So the distinction is incredibly important, and I think is the most important aspect of this whole issue. People's fetishes and pride flags matter a little, but they matter less than violent harm done to children. In so far as "normalizing" loli art will lead to a slippery slope to pedos getting accepted to LGBTQ and this later slipping into normalizing actual harm to children, this matters. But the second step in that process is the primary question I'm concerned with: does loli art actually gateway towards real CP or physical acts? Because if not then the question of loli-pedos getting into LGBTQ or not doesn't matter because they won't slip further.
More options
Context Copy link
Something can be legal without being normalised.
E.g. It's not criminal to be into scat but people really don't talk about how much they love shit.
In any case, making it easier for pedos to be addicted to porn seriously lowers the odds of them doing something harmful, just as porn use lowers RL sexual activity.
In addition, empirical data from Denmark and Czech Republic where CP was legal for a time make it look like this is true.
Yes, that would be the current status quo. While many (including myself, and the governing board at Mastercard it seems) find it sketchy as all get out and want nothing to do with it, it remains legal in the eyes of the government.
This the central question underlying this whole discussion is about whether it's fair to treat gore and loli/CP differently from more "vanilla" sorts of porn, ie whether it should be normalized.
Until we can fix the pedo issue at the root ( prevent the developmental disorder causing it), letting pedos watch porn is probably the best idea.
I mean, imagine how horny people would be if the only porn available was something they didn't care for at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought my parenthesis use was bad.
yep, plus there's still tons of mostly-clothed 13-16yos dancingon tiktok, and it even happened on local tv sometimes ("wholesome yoga/gymnastics competitions for 14yos")
I can't see at all how suppressing drawn loli is a useful use of effort, compared to anything else, tbh
Yeah I missed an ender there. Other than that textual organization via nested parentheses is the habit of the bold Aryan champion.
Dang I guess I need to watch more local TV.
I never watch tv, but just saw it randomly once, so I doubt it's that common. Also relevant, child beauty pageants (and i don't think the moms bringing their daughters there are even pedo-adjacent)
Contrary to common perceptions, pedos don't really like child beauty pageants at all (or at least they get very little attention on venues where people pay close attention to whatever sexy children are out there).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
ooh, this is a pretty exotic thing to see in the wild. From a first-person point-of-view, do you think that child porn increases or decreases your desire for real children and the probability of actually molesting a child? To me most of the morality of the situation condenses to that one question.
This is true for sophisticated pedophiles who already know where to find this stuff, but making it really hard to get child porn still reduces the viewership on the margins, as dumb people or only mildly-pedophilic people won't have the knowledge and/or motivation to go seek it out.
I cannot comment on CP use. However, I've always heard that watching regular porn decreases your drive to go find regular sex. It does make sense to me.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's pretty much irrelevant. It's just the classic Grand Theft Auto debate of whether it makes you more likely to engage in violence or not. The general scientific consensus seemed to end up overwhelmingly as "Well, it makes certain indicators of conflict and aggression-oriented cognition more prominent temporarily in the brain, but other than that it's probably neither going to significantly or even really at all affect the probability of you turning into a mass murderer nor being prevented from being one." No amount of GTA was probably going to stop Salvador Ramos from doing what he did (some future Holodeck-like perfectly realistic simulation, maybe, but that's a different story for a time we're not yet in), and no GTA addict is probably going to turn into Salvador Ramos because of it.
Does watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" make you more or less likely to want to be a millionaire? Of course the question is nonsensical, because all we know that people are only interested in the premise of the show because they already have an inherent desire, independent of and predating the show, to be a millionaire. (That's implicitly understood by nearly everyone in this case, but applying it to other situations tends to reveal the foolishness behind less commonly agreed upon media controversies.)
The same is true of Grand Theft Auto. People play it and enjoy it because (among other reasons of course) other people kind of suck and it's sometimes fun to imagine just getting to mow a bunch of them down without consequences. Does that mean you're likely to actually do it? Yes if you're predisposed to and no if you're not (same as game shows are unlikely to convince people with a genuinely low natural acquisitiveness that they are suddenly desperate to be rich).
And the same is also true of pedophiles and child porn. The desire predates and drives the search for the content. Same as with GTA, it's going to influence your cognition temporarily, make sexy lolis dancing around in your mind (that is, whatever neurological indicators there are of active pedophilic attraction) more prominent (though, as the characteristic quirk of male sexuality, (for most men anyway) you'll suddenly be totally uninterested in it for at least a bit once you cooooom, a threshold that isn't as hard/visible in regards to violent stimuli). Whether you'll go further than the screen is almost entirely dependent on other factors. And the desire in general is wholly unaffected.
I actually wasn't talking about child porn (which I don't look at anymore, as it's often, in my view, generally inferior in technical quality and erotic character to the more legal stuff which is in great abundance and thus not worth whatever hassles/legal risks are involved in acquiring it, even though those are still relatively minor (at least in likelihood, not in expected downside) with even a small bit of education). I was talking about the abundance of legal but sexualized content of minors all over the Internet. You are correct about child porn though in that even though it's actually fairly easy to find and consume it safely, doing so is still often definitely is too much for many dumb people (particularly young zoomers who often can't do anything technologically if it's not in convenient app form).
Edit: Though I should be clear that I interpreted your question (based on the phrase "desire for real children") as being in regards to one's behavioral inclination to have actual sexual contact with children assuming that circumstances making the opportunity available were already present (that is, if someone would do it or not in the "moment of truth"). Overall, I do think child porn availability likely reduces instances of sexual contact with children via the same mechanism by which porn reduces instances of sexual contact with/between adults (including rape, but also consensual ones): it saps your time/willpower and occupies energy/moments you could otherwise spend pursuing IRL mating activities. It's as true of pedophiles as it is of anyone else.
Going based on my prior analogy, it's like how any amount of time spent watching "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", will, if anything, most likely reduce your chance of actually becoming one, if not just because watching it is not an activity that actually actively productively contributes to the process of becoming a millionaire (in most cases, unless you're training to get on the show and win yourself, but that's a long shot, kind of like claiming that (child or adult) porn is going to train you in how to seduce females and sexually satisfy them, which may occasionally be true for some but only very rarely).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your division of "you" and "we" in this comment obscures your misunderstanding, I think. Many, maybe all of the people you seem to think you're addressing presumably agree that fictional abuse is preferable to real abuse. But that doesn't mean they're comfortable accidentally seeing it, and it definitely doesn't mean that profit-seeking companies are comfortable having it floating around in their social media ecosystems, where it might lead to bad press or a userbase exodus. The same is true of many categories of pornography that don't raise any age-of-consent issues at all. Torture porn, scatological porn, even non-pornographic materials depicting violence, may all be totally fictitious and yet they will often be censored.
The goal is not to stop you, personally, from doing something objectionable, though in some cases censorship might contribute to that end. The goal is to create welcoming, profitable semi-public spaces that will not attract pitchfork-wielding mobs.
Well perhaps I am confused, but it seems to me like most people communicating "This is a good thing actually." mean it in regards to fundamental moral concerns, not concerns of expediency, convenience, or compliance. But I do acknowledge that many (even pedos in some cases) may hold apparently censorious views for those reasons. After all, if even I ever started up a social media platform that somehow attained any sort of popularity, even I would have to sadly pretend sufficiently enough to vigorously oppose the pedophilic content on it.
That's the goal of their owners. I'm not sure why their users should care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link