Age regression is child porn?

[87blue]

From the OP:

@87blue

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.

I find it interesting that he invokes an appeal to disgust and false dilemna. Like sure you may not feel disgust if the object in the pic is a child, that must mean you get off the child?

[Pseudo_53]

Its true that most people will call those who consume loli/shota or other fictional cp pedophiles. Its also a matter of fact that most people have no real understanding of what pedophile means to begin with. There really isn’t an argument to be found here apart from an acknowledgement of the social status quo.

Matters of “what is” are established through empirical study, matters of “what ought to be” are established thought argumentation (Im being somewhat reductive of course). This discussion seems entire aimless in what if anything its trying to establish.

[anon56193187]

@Chie

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

@Chie

Fiction/fantasy, where no actual child is involved, is not in any way, shape or form a type of CSAM.

He is correct though. Even written material about adult/child sex is illegal in at least one country I’m aware of.

Even in the USA, it can be a crime under obscenity laws. It would have to meet the Miller test standards, but how many members of a jury are going to actually take that into consideration? Look at what happened to the website MrDouble.

Arthur was found guilty of three counts of trafficking in obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of a child, five counts of trafficking in obscene text stories about the sexual abuse of children, and one count of engaging in the business of selling obscene matters involving the sexual abuse of children.

[NuclearCognition]

The issue of whether it’s legally child porn has been adequately explored, but there’s another dynamic in this situation that warrants elucidation. Age regression, in sexualized contexts or as a fetish, is at least adjacent to pedophilia. I say that as someone who loves age regression as both a little and a caretaker myself. The sexually charged motif of age regression is that power dynamic of an immature pre-pubescent/adolescent minor and a mature adult partner. You could make the case that it’s truly “auto-pedophilia” for some; either way, the implications are clear. If actualized, the fantasy is always adults and minors in sexual situations. That’s ultimately a good thing.

People that I’ve met into age regression (the CGL/ABDL communities, diaperfurs/babyfurs, you name it) will almost always insist that there’s no connection to pedophilia as they draw themselves as, or simulate the mannerisms and appearance of, a young child in sexual play with their partners who occupy the role of mommy or daddy. They’re viewing it as: Pedophilia is condemned/harmful/evil → I don’t want to be condemned/harmful/evil → We cannot be pedophiles. It’s horribly misguided, as it says “that bigotry and hatred you feel is valid, I even share in it, but we need to direct it at THEM and not US!” Little do they know (no pun intended), the puritanical masses they’re appealing towards do not care. They’re still in line to be thrown under the bus when “judgment day” arrives, they’ve simply delayed their day in court. Someone will be throwing them under the bus next, and the cycle continues.

In the case of a piece of art described in the OP, there’s already 2 layers of sexual fetishization as they admit. Nothing in the art itself depicts a conventionally sexual depiction, but paraphilias aren’t conventional sexuality. The art is fixating on the moment in age regression where you’ve been reduced to a helpless, dumb pre-pubescent. It’s sexually humiliating to have your control over your self-perception manipulated, your gender/genitalia inverted, and your puberty revoked. There’s sexual thrills involved in being forced to occupy a role, and in this art the role is that of a pre-pubescent child with the opposite genitalia specifically (even if the genitalia aren’t displayed in the image).

Personally, I love that this tool exists for us to process our pedophilia. None of it involves children, we draw ourselves and other ageplaying adults as the infants and children in the art to guarantee there’s no sexualizing real children (a concern in certain 3D CGI iterations of loli/shota content), and we have communities that allow us to network with other pedophiles who aren’t potentially involved in the production and distribution of actual child pornography. The upsides are plentiful for pedophiles, all age regressors and society as well. It’s endlessly frustrating to care about how humanity can implement these tools we already have to benefit everyone, and to know that the majority consensus would be to label me a monster and repeat exactly what the artist in the OP states. “This is gross and most people won’t like it. I don’t know whether it causes actual harm or not, but as long as it disgusts me then it deserves prohibition.” Cool, so we should take away a means for pedophiles to safely explore their sexuality without ever involving minors in any way, take away a means for them to meet other pedophiles who live upstanding lives, and perpetuate the anxiety around human sexuality that we’ve never overcome.

People generally want to deny pedophiles any form of pornographic material, even if it’s not “child porn” or if it’s been definitively proven to be harmless. Labelling something like the artwork mentioned in this thread as “child porn” is a moral excuse to achieve this ends without stating this ends.