I was in an argument with this guy over the contents of a lic i was trying to commission here. Now I have a tf fetish, in particular for werewolves and tg. This pic had that in general along with the concept of people turning into monster girls…however there was age regression there as well, which I didn’t care for, but the werewolf character I wanted was apparently 9 years old…
So his argument is basically,
I will go to feet again for the best conparison: someone with a foot fetish, more often than not, would not look at children’s feet (drawn or real life) because it’s WEIRD. People who have a fetish for small tits don’t look at little girls, because even though little girls have small tits, they aren’t fucking pedos and don’t want to look at a child’s tits. The only people who do this are people who enjoy looking at children.
If you want people to stop calling you a pedo, then stop consuming anything involving children (drawn content as well) and stop defending it. It is really very simple. If you have 0 fetishes for child content, this should be extremely easy. Your average person is absolutely repulsed by the idea of looking at any content related to some kind of fetish involving children. If someone sees art of a young character and then realises the artist has drawn really, hyper detained feet and toes on it, they will be disgusted. Hence why when you are saying “they turned into a 9 year old child” along side “i have a fetish for transformation” people have a pretty big problem with it.
Is this even right? I am pretty sure a tf fetish is about the transformation aspect, not the age of the subject in of itself.
I’m beginning to lose my patience with these types of rhetoric.
There’s nothing wrong with being a pedophile, so long as they do not act on their urges in a way that harms real children or would put them at risk of adult-child contact/sexual abuse.
This part right here is what gripes me
They offer nothing of substance other than “it’s icky and weird dude!!”
“It’s gross!”
“It’s uncomfortable!”
What about content involving rape of adults? What about a sex story or cartoon or comic where a woman is held up against the wall by a man with no discerning facial features. choked while he digs his fingernails into her face and neck as he treats himself to the fruits of her body as she struggles to scream?? What about that? What if she’s shown urinating too??
Oh, but I suppose that would be discomforting for some, yet he wouldn’t say much to it because it’s not within his discomforting perrogative?
Live and let live. Simulated/virtual child pornography is harmless, as it does not cause abuse. Arguing that it should be banned because “muh ick factor” is the same logic used by racists to justify laws against interracial marriage and cohabitation.
The two are comparable in this instance because neither are harmful and are within a person’s rights to engage and indulge in.
The thing is I consume alot of TF media, and that is a whole other ballpark compared to most fetishes.
It was the other part that concerns me, that looking a child character undergoing a transformation despite nothing sexual happening is somehow the same a being a MAP.
Him comparing it to a foot fetish is a bit disengenous because again, it isn’t a person’s body part that is the fetish.
Child porn must involve 1. actual 2. children and 3. actual 4. porn. In other words, there are 4 attributes. If any one is missing, then it is not child porn. As for the “spirit” of the content, well, feel free to put me in a “spiritual” prison, if I committed any “spiritual” crimes.
Agreed. Sadly, he thinks me jacking off to any material that involves children in any way is a sign of pedophilia. And not say, that transformation fiction is different. You won’t believe how often I heard of awakenings due to seeing the donkey transformations in Pinocchio as children.
Fur Affinity? Use Ink Bunny, instead. All those who try to shame you are your enemies. Don’t even bother interacting with them, especially when alternatives exist. That being said, I did favorite quite a few loli images on Fur Affinity, so it’s also the simple matter of how much you can get under the radar. I’d show you, but for some reason, that site’s login screen does not appear to be functioning properly.
[quote=“LegalLoliLover1, post:5, topic:2035”]
Child porn must involve 1. actual 2. children and 3. actual 4. porn. In other words, there are 4 attributes. If any one is missing, then it is not child porn. [/quote]
Incorrect. Please be careful when making such generalized statements. In the country where I live, non-illustrated written materials (e.g. a story) can be condemned as child pornography, and can earn you a 2 year jail sentence.
As far as “porn” being required, consider the U.S. case of Stephen A. Knox – he was convicted of a child pornography offense for purchasing videos of young girls in leotards prancing about. His conviction was upheld on appeal. You can read about it at the following link:
Under US Federal law, child pornography is limited to sexual depictions of actual children, and is illegal on that fact alone.
The legality of simulated/virtual child pornography, where no real child is used, is on the same footing as adult pornography.
Outside of contemporary legal definitions, no. CSAM, which came to replace “child pornography”, is definitively limited to depictions of the sexual exploitation and abuse of actual children, not the mere idea of children.
There is no abuse occurring with virtual/simulated/fictional child pornography, let alone a child.
It’s the same reason why horror films and snuff movies have different definitions.
If drawings, stories, or any other kind of fiction were to be read as falling into the category of CP/CSAM, then depictions of fictitious children made with adults could also qualify, and by that point, you’ve already muddied up the definition and trivialized it to the point of meaninglessness.
Fiction/fantasy, where no actual child is involved, is not in any way, shape or form a type of CSAM.
Exactly. When people try to shame me for my fictional crimes, rather than stop, I just double down on those crimes. What’s a little rape, compared to assassinations, cannibalism, and every other atrocity known to man? And I get off on every single one of them.
Actually he is largely correct. Child pornography DOES require a REAL minor, however, it does not require actual sexually explicit conduct (it could be actual or simulated conduct). The standard to declare something as child pornography is much more lax than that for obscenity. All it requires is a real minor and sexual conduct (including lascivious displays of genitals, pubic area, or anus).
Fictional materials depicting underage chatacters, to be declared illegal, must undergo a stricter test called the Miller Test. So in addition to sexual conduct you need to prove obscenity. This is the same standard applied to adult pornography, so fictional materials with minors as well as adult porn are on the same plane legally speaking. And once something is declared obscene and thus illegal, it only applies to that specific work, and not to all others with a similar theme. It is a case-by-case, state by state matter.
Furthermore, while child porn can be taken down the web once it is found by law enforcement, alleged obscenity cannot be removed from circulation until it has been declared obscene in a court of law.
This may be irrelevant but I think it makes sense.
No one is attracted to representation.
One does not find the lady at the bar attractive because of how hot the lady down the street is. No one is attracted to a ahape because of what or who bears the shape. One is attracted to a shape because the shape accommodates an attraction pattern. It follows, then, that an attraction to the shape of a doll or image is not an attraction to a person of any age. What is important is that production entails no inappropriate human involvement.
An attraction to the shape of one structure does not depend on the shape or even the existence of another structure. Therefore, the structure that bears the shape attracted to is the object of attraction.
Please note that I said, “In the country where I live.” You are talking about American law – I am not. There are jurisdictions where plain-text (i.e. non-illustrated) fictional works can be (and are) classified as child pornography, and people are charged/prosecuted and convicted on that basis.
It’s deeply unfortunate, and I think the problem is that it doesn’t really matter in any practical sense the mechanisms of how it’s a crime, lawmakers could easily move fiction out from under the CSAM umbrella and just make it its own separate offense as many states even in the us have done with dolls. Any argument from legal terminology can and will be trivially circumvented.
People who have a fetish for small tits don’t look at little girls, because even though little girls have small tits, they aren’t fucking pedos and don’t want to look at a child’s tits
This reads to me as an over-generalization to say that a pedophile or lolicon cannot also have a small breast fetish. One fetish can lead to another. Small breast can come first, then pedo/lolicon, and vise-versa.
If you want people to stop calling you a pedo, then stop consuming anything involving children (drawn content as well)
Here is a big problem: this conflation of “art = reality” is so dangerous and blatantly casual that it becomes blindly one-sided clutch argument with no room to allow any further refutation to the defender that this recommendation targets.
Your average person is absolutely repulsed by the idea of looking at any content related to some kind of fetish involving children
A minority-favored fetish where fewer people are interested in does not make it any less of a valid fetish to be repulsed by. All fetishes are repulsed by someone. All fetishes are abnormal in some regard. Even those who are interested in the main stem of a fetish (ie: lolicon) are repulsed by some related branches of the same fetish. For example, there are people who enjoy romantic/consensual lolicon content who are repulsed by rape-themed lolicon content. Both are lolicons, but they have not the same precise interests. This is totally disregarded where it is a critical detail to be included in an argument that claims all infinite shades of red are the same exact color of red.
That said, I can see their point. They are anti-pedophilia, which is a normal thought process to have by basic principle of minority vs majority mindset. There is a related context attached to pedophilia insinuating that pedophilia is inherently an act of violence against children and cannot be a good thing in any regard. You don’t win the argument against majority. Why bother trying? Defeatist mindset, yes, unfortuantely. But practical, also yes. You can channel your energy elsewhere and be far more productive with your endeavors.