I don’t exactly know what to categorize this as, apologies if that causes any problems.
My question is: How do you respond to someone who has been a victim of CSA using emotional arguments towards banning fictional content? (Loli/Shota to be specific)
I was discussing this topic with someone and provided a few articles/research (all of those articles I found here on the forum) showing fictional content was harmless, they respond by saying (apologize for the wall of text, I’m going to type exactly what they said. Strong language at the end)
"I don’t like talking to people who don’t understand the inherent harm of loli/shotacon.
I don’t need to research, unfortunately. I’m a survivor of grooming using said “harmless” material, hence my anger at anyone even considering making the publication of it legal. This isn’t like banning knives that have other uses outside of murdering people, CP has no other use, except for pedophiles to get off on, until they grow tired of 2D and move onto real children.
I don’t care what anyone says to the contrary. I know what goes on on the internet. “”“Harmless”"""" CP was used to groom me years ago, back before minors felt comfortable drawing clear boundaries like the do now, and despite that it is still happening.
I literally do not care what “studies” say, I trust other people’s experiences over statistics from a country that wildly under-reports sexual crimes and under-penalizes even petty crime.
Kindly fuck off, thank you."
I would like to here someone’s thoughts regarding this, as I felt bad after this discussion.
Yeah this is a very tough thing to talk about because not everyone argues the same and many things can be lost or ignored in the heat of the argument.
The classic “groomer material” argument or victim call. I don’t like it when people claim that it should be banned because it can be used to groom kids, as such material can easily be self-produced or substituted with legal-age, youthful-looking porn actresses or other things.
If they mention how they or someone they know was groomed or victimized, offer your condolences but hold firm. When people use these types of arguments they’re not really trying to convince you that you’re wrong, they’re projecting shame exploiting it to get you to back down to them. It’s more of a power thing, than anything.
Also there is no evidence that loli can serve as a “gateway drug” to actual CP or abuse, in fact, there is no meaningful or causal relationship between pornography consumption and criminal sexual acts.
That’s like blaming Marilyn Manson and Doom for Columbine. Or blaming Microsoft or Activision because a guy who killed someone owned an Xbox and played Call of Duty.
Yes, the primary purpose of these materials is to get off, but it’s better they have a safe, legal outlet with no sign of progression than actual CP.
The myth that Japan greatly underreports sex crime is, in my opinion, a racist meme. The problematic issue with this is that sex crimes all across the board are believed to be underreported, not just in Japan but everywhere. And the Japanese government has made great strides in the right direction to adapt and be more of a liason for victims to come forward.
This can also be observed in Denmark, who has legalized all non-child pornography.
Japan has extremely low crime rates all across the board, from low violent crime to white-collar crime. It’s common practice to add 20% when evaluating sex crime statistics to accommodate for the “dark field” and even then Japan’s sex crime and CSA statistics remain very low.
Basically, just argue with them. Present facts that back up your claims, but be willing to acknowledge their points and address them as well.
Don’t be bullied by emotional or moral coercion and gaslighting.
I think the groomer argument is pretty weak. It assumes that they’re designed to be used as grooming guides or tools, rather than private adult media not designed to be viewed by minors. It also doesn’t withstand very much scrutiny when you break it down too.
“What about people who aren’t groomers?”
“Or the people who don’t commit these sorts of crimes? Do you think that pedophiles are all inevitable criminals?”
I also asked “since law enforcement has a huge backlog of reports of real child abuse images to investigate and prosecute, what proportion of their resources should be diverted from these cases into cases of obscenity that cause no direct harm to anyone?”
“Why would you put the rights of millions of artists and consumers, who are not criminal consumers of CSAM, or are likely to commit hands-on CSA in prison over what you think they might do just because of a superficial correlation?”
“Usually what drives pedophiles to commit illegal sex acts is a failure to see children as victims. This is indicative of something far, far worse than a pedophilic sexual interest.”
in addition to @terminus point.
There really is no plausible, reasonable justification for banning/censoring fiction and fantasy.
I would say that she should try to stop making a relationship to her trauma with fiction, even because it makes her own quality of life worse. And the usual, if that makes you feel bad for whatever reason, then just don’t look for it. And of course, if she see this kind of thing in inappropriate places, report it. All pornography has its own place. And that place is not in the “free access” internet.