I’m letting you all know that you may have to answer to the authorities in Australia over this organization’s heinous acts. If I decide to report to the Australian Classification Board. You may find yourself blocked out from Australia.
I think that’s unlikely to happen, but you do you.
2 Likes
Are you implying drawings/animations have rights?
We’re not
Dolls don’t have rights either, its a hunk of plastic
I don’t care what QAnon, Yourself, or Australia’s prudish censorship happy government has to say.
2 Likes
Of course such draconian ideals of censorship and prudery would come from a penal colony. Science and freedom are unfashionable there.
First of all, there is no such thing as “normalization”. No English dictionary defines it in the context by which you’re using it in. Countries such as Japan and Denmark, where these materials are legal, have the lowest child sexual abuse rates out of any first-world nation, which is quite commendable considering Japan’s population and economic prowess. This has also been noticed by the scientific community, where countries that prohibit such material also have exponentially higher child sex abuse and child pornography statistics.
Also, drawn/fictional child pornography does not contribute to the sexualization of real minors, rather, it sexualizes the idea of fictional representations that, in reality, can only appear to depict a minor. Such expression falls within the realm of protected speech in countries such as the United States, Japan, Austria, Denmark, Germany, and others just to name a few.
The availability of such material has also been shown to have no effect on the way actual child sex abuse is viewed by their communities, in much the same way that violence in media has not affected the way people feel about actual violent crimes. The “normalization” argument is an age-old pearl clutching tactic used by scientifically and culturally illiterate rubes to justify the censorship and eradication of ideas, concepts, and depictions that they find personally offensive, rather than an interest in preventing harm.
Children deserve and are afforded rights and protection, as in, actual, identifiable individuals. The the simple idea or prospect of minors as a whole is too broad and not realistically justified, ethically nor empirically, to impose draconian criminal penalties on people for expressing their desires by way of fiction. By doing this, you harm innocent people who are highly unlikely, if at all, to commit sexual offenses against minors. This has been extensively and empirically validated by a number of studies and meta reviews.
So far, empirical and scientific review of the issue does not support policy which would criminalize fictional pornography that depicts minors, nor does it support the criminalization and prohibition of child sex dolls. If anything, scientific concensus argues strongly against imposing such criminalization, especially for individuals who have committed so prior offenses or are not at risk of doing so, as that would further harm society’s ability to reasonably and rationally understand the harms intrinsic to actual child sexual abuse, in addition deprive individuals of an outlet which could thereby increase the likelihood that minors will be sexually abused.
My sources:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=179581
3 Likes