/townhall/ - Townhall

That sounds completely legit.  I don't know to what extent you can produce something like that via AI right now, but the argument at least is sounds, and does apply to other stuff, like beef was mentioned.

As subtext there, is substitute child pornography (mostly drawn/animated right now, I suppose) being cracked down on to prop up the illicit and harmful child pornography industry?  I don't think we can say for certain that it is not, and that's worrisome.

What do I think about the argument? The most honest answer would be "The libertarians are arguing for child porn again."

I'm still not on board with "Give people free access to child porn, then they don't molest children".

I feel like it just sends the message that sex with kids is acceptable.

>>11546
- I exploited children because it was profitable.
- I exploited children because I was evil.

- I molested children because I lacked sexual stimulation.
- I molested children because I was evil.

The first step seems to be to pick a model.

In general I can't come up with an answer I wish to defend.

>>11550
> I molested children because I lacked sexual stimulation.
I hate how people go to this for any sort of sexual violence. "I couldn't help myself, my boy craved sex, so I took it."

I don't want to act like a saint when it comes to consuming pron. But I don't understand how people really can't go about their day while keeping it in their pants.

And that's why I also feel that pedophiles shouldn't even be seeking an outlet by watching CP.
Just get better at controlling yourself and either do normal porn or find a way to get by without stimulating yourself.

>>11548
I guess that is true in one sense, but not in another sense.  "Child porn" usually refers to porn of real children, and creating this porn involves harming those children.  Aella is arguing for AI-generated porn whose creation does not involve harming any children.

>>11551
>I hate how people go to this for any sort of sexual violence.

I suppose for me, I'm triggered by inconsistency.

>Just get better at controlling yourself and either do normal porn or find a way to get by without stimulating yourself.

I feel like if you say "Pedophiles are EVIL.  Full stop," all is well.  If someone continues, saying pedophiles might be converted or that they can be abstinent, you end up applying models that many think are inappropriate for [other] sexualities.  You really have to just go back to -- it's evil, there's no reasoning with it.

>>11546
Certainly possible.
I will say there's a lot of naivety involved in regards to why someone would pay for something they know is real, or something they know suffered.
But outside of that, the industry wouldn't have, let's say, outsiders if this was how it was done.

This said, though, I'm not sure how much of the lot is outsiders to begin with.

>>11546
I think the question ends up being if the increased supply fulfilling the demand ends up reducing harm, or if bringing it to the mainstream just brings more people into it. Personally, I'm pessimistic about the potential results.

The argument is that simulated sexual material of children functions as a kind of promotional advertisement that normalizes and strengthens the underlying attitudes.

So, watching a Honda commercial with animated guys driving an animated sedan has nothing specifically to do with actual cars. Watching it doesn't magically give you a car. It doesn't feel the same as driving one. However, the advertisement is designed inherently to make you want to be associated with something in real-life. Most won't watch it and buy a Honda. Some will.

That's the argument to why lolicon and other such media should be banned, even if it not only doesn't hurt actual people but helps to an extent significantly by channeling what could otherwise develop into real habits into fantasy.

I don't buy the argument personally because I believe it's factually wrong. Being saturated with violent video games, movies, television shows, and more haven't been shown like ever to make anybody more actually violent. Fantasy material that's divorced from reality... it's a difference that's simple to get. This is true in general and true in this case. Objectively speaking, evidence doesn't seem to exist that the audience who seeks out lolicon or whatever else are any more likely to be criminals than the general population. It doesn't work as advertisment.

Still, the opposing argument ought to be considered seriously.