Exactly. Same with faux bait stuff. I personally think it’s gross so I don’t consume it, but if everyone is a consenting adult and it stops people from consuming real CSAM I can’t really support banning it.
But the problem many people have with stuff like that is they assume the people consuming it will go on to do it to real people, which is the same argument they tried to use against violent video games.
A less obvious problem with AIGen CSAM is that the sheer volume of it could make it nearly impossible to track down actual cases of abused children. I am not particularly morally concerned with someone generating it — I don’t think it directly harms any child and I’m not entirely convinced it harms the consumer. And if those were the only considerations, I’d say have at it (subject to further research because I don’t think it is conclusive that it is harmless to the consumer, either).
But if it means law enforcement agencies have to give up prosecuting pedo rings of actual abusers because they can’t tell which images among the thousands are real, well that is real harm to real victims and that is enough to ban it.
The case for banning simulated CSAM produced with GenAI is that if the training data contains actual CSAM then it would be directly contributing to real children being hurt. Obviously generating those pictures doesn’t further cause physical harm to anyone but someone has to already have been harmed in the past for that training data to exist in the first place.
This however is not true with cartoons for example nor does it apply to sex dolls either.
It wouldn’t compel me to hurt people, but I definitely get more into kinks the more time I spend with them (to a point). Violence in media has never had a noticeable effect on me though.
Society would probably actually benefit from a non political purely objective science-based commission to review published data, make recommendations for new studies, and come up with an evidence-based recommendation to governments about whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
I haven’t deep dived on this so maybe it’s already well known among sociologists/psych pathologists. But the key is a trusted science-based policy. We did it for violent video games and found no correlation. Not at all obvious to me if that also holds for pederasty.
Yeah I know, the trusted scientific commission is not going to happen
whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
It could but I doubt that it would. Pedophiles don’t rape children - rapists do. Being both is rare. Having been born with attraction to children doesn’t mean they automatically also lack a moral compas and self-control. Most of them know it’s wrong and never offend. The vast majority of people in prison for child sexual abuse aren’t pedophiles but just good old rapists. Kids simply make an easy target.
Yeah that’s a thing. CSA can happen as part of bullying, for example, or someone forced into it by a partner or because of circumstances like drug addiction or poverty.
Pedophilia doesn’t describe behaviour but attraction. If a rapist is not exlusively attracted to children then they’re by definition not a pedophile. I’m well aware that in everyday language that word is used interchangeably with child molester but those terms are not synonymous.
agree with all of that except the exclusive bit, i’m going to go with the wikipedia definition
a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children
which presents a problem for my point, doesn’t it. if you are attracted to children, but not primarily, what are you? a semipaedo? if you only ever told one lie, it doesn’t make you a liar. that is acceptable, even obvious to me. but you only fucked one kid so you’re not a paedophile? i can’t get my head round that
i tried to look up the case but only get loads of results for fritzl
what age was his daughter? was he popping viagras and crying ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you?’ i would previously have thought that being able to maintain a boner long enough to rape your own daughter (assuming prepubescent) makes you a paedophile. but having just read the ‘primary or exclusive’ bit of the definition i don’t know what to make of it
yes of course in this or any other specific case it’s not particularly relevant. but it’s something to consider against the general question of what is a paedophile
re laws, that would be thoughtcrime so i don’t expect there are
Exactly. Same with faux bait stuff. I personally think it’s gross so I don’t consume it, but if everyone is a consenting adult and it stops people from consuming real CSAM I can’t really support banning it.
But the problem many people have with stuff like that is they assume the people consuming it will go on to do it to real people, which is the same argument they tried to use against violent video games.
A less obvious problem with AIGen CSAM is that the sheer volume of it could make it nearly impossible to track down actual cases of abused children. I am not particularly morally concerned with someone generating it — I don’t think it directly harms any child and I’m not entirely convinced it harms the consumer. And if those were the only considerations, I’d say have at it (subject to further research because I don’t think it is conclusive that it is harmless to the consumer, either).
But if it means law enforcement agencies have to give up prosecuting pedo rings of actual abusers because they can’t tell which images among the thousands are real, well that is real harm to real victims and that is enough to ban it.
Generated CSAM is banned. For the same reason, something like this should follow.
The case for banning simulated CSAM produced with GenAI is that if the training data contains actual CSAM then it would be directly contributing to real children being hurt. Obviously generating those pictures doesn’t further cause physical harm to anyone but someone has to already have been harmed in the past for that training data to exist in the first place.
This however is not true with cartoons for example nor does it apply to sex dolls either.
It wouldn’t compel me to hurt people, but I definitely get more into kinks the more time I spend with them (to a point). Violence in media has never had a noticeable effect on me though.
Society would probably actually benefit from a non political purely objective science-based commission to review published data, make recommendations for new studies, and come up with an evidence-based recommendation to governments about whether virtual CSAM (no actual children harmed or in AI training data) and lifelike child sex dolls result in statistically more child predation.
I haven’t deep dived on this so maybe it’s already well known among sociologists/psych pathologists. But the key is a trusted science-based policy. We did it for violent video games and found no correlation. Not at all obvious to me if that also holds for pederasty.
Yeah I know, the trusted scientific commission is not going to happen
It could but I doubt that it would. Pedophiles don’t rape children - rapists do. Being both is rare. Having been born with attraction to children doesn’t mean they automatically also lack a moral compas and self-control. Most of them know it’s wrong and never offend. The vast majority of people in prison for child sexual abuse aren’t pedophiles but just good old rapists. Kids simply make an easy target.
Most reformed pedophiles also get reformed before offense, so…
This is the most relevant point I have seen to the current scene, so far.
Also, boarding schools.
aren’t paedophiles? yes your honour, i fucked that kid but i didn’t like it
Yeah that’s a thing. CSA can happen as part of bullying, for example, or someone forced into it by a partner or because of circumstances like drug addiction or poverty.
Pedophilia doesn’t describe behaviour but attraction. If a rapist is not exlusively attracted to children then they’re by definition not a pedophile. I’m well aware that in everyday language that word is used interchangeably with child molester but those terms are not synonymous.
agree with all of that except the exclusive bit, i’m going to go with the wikipedia definition
which presents a problem for my point, doesn’t it. if you are attracted to children, but not primarily, what are you? a semipaedo? if you only ever told one lie, it doesn’t make you a liar. that is acceptable, even obvious to me. but you only fucked one kid so you’re not a paedophile? i can’t get my head round that
In Hungary, there was a case, where a father who raped his daughter as punishment used that defense.
i tried to look up the case but only get loads of results for fritzl
what age was his daughter? was he popping viagras and crying ‘this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you?’ i would previously have thought that being able to maintain a boner long enough to rape your own daughter (assuming prepubescent) makes you a paedophile. but having just read the ‘primary or exclusive’ bit of the definition i don’t know what to make of it
I don’t see why it matters whether the rapist is or isn’t a paedophile.
He raped a child. That makes him a CSA offender.
Is there even laws specifically to deal with paedophiles rather than people who rape children?
yes of course in this or any other specific case it’s not particularly relevant. but it’s something to consider against the general question of what is a paedophile
re laws, that would be thoughtcrime so i don’t expect there are
It was a younger, and the rapist’s name never got out here. Got quickly buried for whatever reason.