What do you think about the claims made in this article?

What could be a matter of concern is that they come to consider that VCSAM is somehow a ‘‘form of CSAM’’ and claim that the consumption of VCSAM generally increases the risk of sexual offending, seemingly regardless of other relevant factors. Are there any academic works addressing these objections? What is to be made of this? Undeniably, VCSAM can be used in unethical ways (meaning harmful to others or oneself), but that hardly means that it is unethical in itself. Potentiality does not equal necessity.

Research has found that young adults perceived continually viewing and distributing CSAM to lead to further production and negative effects for victims (Prichard et al. 2015). Maras and Shapiro (2017) argue that VCSAM does not prevent the escalation of pedophilic behavior. Conversely, it can progress CSAM addiction. VCSAM can fuel the abuse of children by legitimizing and reinforcing one’s views of children (Northern Ireland Office, 2007). The material can also be used in the grooming of children, reducing the inhibitions of children, and normalizing and desensitizing the sexual demands (Cohen-Almagor, 2013), particularly if the VCSAM was to depict the victim’s favorite cartoon character engaged in the sexual activity in a conceding and happy way (Christensen et al., 2021).

Several articles drew from the voices of authorities and highlighted their messages that VCSAM is a form of CSAM, signifying that this type of material can still result in harm. Several cases included messages from judicial officers. For example, in one case, while the judicial officer indicated that drawn images and anime are considered to be less serious compared with pictures of real children, it was still considered to be “of great concern”. In fact, this judicial officer highlighted the “serious risks” of this material, having the potential to “degrade and incite”. In a different case, the judicial officer highlighted the reasonable “public concern” about any type of offense in relation to possessing CSAM and that regardless of whether the children were real or anime, protecting children is of “paramount importance” in society. Another judicial officer highlighted those individuals accessing this material “creates a market” and that this material can still involve the suffering and degradation of children. Another case drew from the voice of law enforcement, with VCSAM charges serving as “a reminder” to society that cartoon/animated images are illegal and can result in serious charges.

The point of escalation in offending was also highlighted across a diverse group throughout the articles. For example, in one article, the director of a child sexual abuse survivor support center voiced the “very real” link between pursuing sexual abuse after viewing such images, irrespective of images being cartoons or involving real victims, arguing the sexualization process is alike. A prosecutor in a different case indicated that sexual offending might be spurred on by the normalization of the cartoon material and through the ability to use it to groom children. In a different case, in which the offender had over 30,000 images, and over 600 videos, all computer-generated or cartoon/anime files, the offender himself said that he was concerned about the effect the material had on him, and he could see himself engaging in worse offending as a result, including perpetrating similar offenses on children.

I’ve reviewed this article and it’s not a scientific paper, nor is it peer-reviewed. It’s basically just someone combing through various news articles and conflating things to an insane and misleading degree. It baffles me how this paper hasn’t been retracted. There’s not a single conclusive leg for it to stand on.

4 Likes

This is a whole load of bullshit. We should rebel and look at fictional materials. These laws are unjust, unnecessarily restrictive and based on paranoia and emotional “reasoning”. These kinds of laws have no place in a civilized society. No one who merely consumes fictional material with fictional minors in sexual situations should put a foot in a prison. Any instance of this is a perversion of justice, and is unethical and an abuse of authority.

3 Likes

Same “reinforcement” theory used for doll laws and years ago, violent video games. Same backward thinking logic. “Violent video games make people want to go out and commit violent acts.” Smoking weed is a “gateway drug” to harder drugs. Harder drugs anymore are most likely to lead to death!
The fact remains, virtual is not real. What type of data sets, real images or text/anime/cartoon can be argued all day long. Words like “may”, “might”, “possibly”, “likely”, “could” are all suppositional and unproven theory. When people have “concerns” it means they’re uncomfortable with something regardless of it’s legality.

5 Likes

(If you are short on time start from p55, but it is interesting read with lots of references)
Counterclaim: Sexual fantasies are a way for people to explore their sexuality without harming anyone and “can also provide a safety valve for sexual practices that individuals have no intention of ever acting out offline. Particularly, where the sexual fantasy is criminal, violent, or might unduly disrupt a person’s day-to-day life, several researchers have observed that the Internet can serve as an outlet or coping mechanism.” Paper also discusses legality, specifically First Amendment protection (p44),“The Court recognized that a sexual attraction to unlawful activities and related fantasies are distinct from intent to actually break the law by engaging in those activities.”

2 Likes