This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?
The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?
I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.
I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.
You must log in or register to comment.
Should AI Child Porn and Sex Dolls be Illegal?
Yes.
Extremely evil and twisted tendencies should be both forbidden and treated, not allowed and accepted. In this case, it’s not an outlet - it’s encouragement. “Oh, I don’t need to seek help, I can manage it thanks to AI”.
Hard stop.
Gosh, I can’t believe I’m typing this, because I find the topic of child abuse horrendous, heinous and disgusting.
But I don’t think your argument against it is enough. There are couples who consensually roleplay stuff like rape, murder, necrophilia, sex slavery… aren’t we encouraging these behaviors if we allow them too?
And I don’t want to think of the things people do to sex dolls, which are perfectly legal to own, in their privacy of their own homes.
The AI part, I can agree if said AI was trained with actual illegal material (yuck!)
But banning dolls? There has to be a better argument than “because it’s morally wrong.”
Again, I reject child abuse 100%.
Now, if you excuse me, I’ll go take a shower.
I totally agree with you. I don’t even want to know what people do in their private spaces. But if the training of an AI or anything similar caused real harm it should be strictly prosecuted even more if it comes to abusing children.
Nevertheless, I cannot support a ban that is based on personal attitudes and emotions and imposed on others. There are opinions and actions that I deeply detest and yet would not condemn as long as no one is harmed in any way in the process.
I feel disgusting sounding like I’m protecting them, but the fact is its not a choice, only acting upon it is and many dont. Give them an out that doesn’t harm others, that stops them seeking elsewhere, and make sure they have a way to get help to change.
You saying porn doesn’t hurt anyone?
Different argument - discussion is what it may contain, are people harmed or affected, and is it morally justifiable. Whether or not porn itself is harmful us a completely different discussion.
When you remove individual responsibility from actions by blaming inanimate objects you do not believe in an individualist ideology.
Do you really think everyone’s responsible enough? Let’s not get in idealistic assumptions when we’re talking about this kind of content
I think its not my place to dictate what’s better for others
My brother in Christ, it’s Child p* we’re talking about
Do normal adults who watch porn have difficulty controlling themselves around people? Maybe. I don’t. Not raping anyone isn’t difficult, no matter how attractive someone is to me. And no matter how much porn I consume, my ability to respect the concept of consent isn’t going anywhere, either.
There is no treatment of paedophilia which cures it. Unfortunately, research has shown that’s not possible. What modern therapies actually consist of, is moral rehabilitation, and self control training. Stuff that any normal person already knows. For a paedophile to actually act on their urges, they have to lack the things that stop any given person from raping, in addition to being a paedophile.
I’m nowhere near as convinced of the “no, allow none of it, ever” as you. I can’t imagine life without any outlet for my libido, be that porn or actual sex. I think most people with paedophilia, live their lives fully capable of never raping a child, no therapy necessary. No clear-minded person needs to be told they shouldn’t rape, and nothing about the condition itself means the person afflicted cant be clear-minded. A paedophile with the self-awareness to seek help isn’t doing it because they are attracted to kids, but because they are attracted to kids, and also aren’t sure they can stop themselves. If that was how humans worked by default, we’d all need “don’t rape” therapy.
Nothing about the condition means it would always be paired with an inability for moral thought or self control. If it did, the therapies we do have couldn’t work without curing the actual condition. And they do work. Just not the way most people probably think they do.
I’m not sure where the line should be, but due to the intense evil done by offending paedophiles, there is a well deserved stigma around the condition. The general public knows almost nothing about it except the damage it can do to those they care about. And yes, that means we should start with a line drawn as safely as possible, but we should also do the work and the actual research, to figure out how much can be done for these people, without harm.
And for the reasons above, I don’t think “nothing”, and “make it all forbidden” is that.
Please do not talk to me about science’s powerlessness to help “the poor”. For starters, it’s far from powerless. And I’d like to remind you that it’s not 1980, but 2023 year. Sex change therapies, hormone blockers, antidepressants and more aids to change not only one’s mental, but also physical self are available.
Providing one wants to search for them.
With that out of mind…
Listen now, and listen well, dude… The likes of you enjoy to take pity on “broken, twisted, wretched, weak” and think it’s humane to accept them into society. But you lot never entertain the idea of living door to door with the ones you’d want to defend. In your heads it all sounds nice, and logical, and honorable. But you want it to become other people’s burden, other people’s responsibility, other people’s struggle.
You say “I, me, mine, myself” as examples of how things are or might be, but you don’t put yourself in the scenarios that your ideas lead to. You won’t put the money where your mouth is, you won’t stain your hands with dirty job, you won’t strain your back with the weight that your ideas bring with them. You want for others to get the job done. You want to dictate to others what to do, what to think, how to act.
Want to make a point? Want to prove a thing? Go, befriend a convicted pedophile. Go, invite a guy known of masturbating to pictures of children like Madeleine to your home, to talk, play and touch your child. You may also want to tell everything you wrote to the people who suffered because of pedophiles.
Then we talk.
Right. Because if I knew someone who was one, they’d openly admit that to me. For all you know, I am one. But no. That’s not how this works. If you’re a paedophile with a clear head in modern society, you’d take that fact to the grave. Only if you didn’t trust yourself to never touch a child, is there any reason to out yourself and expose your life to the downsides of being known, in order to get help. But if you’re 100% sure you’ll never act, like you and I can be about never raping someone, why admit to it? With how hated you’d instantly become, there are only downsides.
And why the fuck would I befriend someone convicted? That’s like saying that to be ok with people who would like to have sex (everyone), I need to be ok with befriending and having around actual known rapists (criminals). People who want to have sex, are not automatically people who can’t stop themselves from taking it.
As for the option of eliminating one’s libido, thats a really good one. But which part of my comment made you think I believe science can’t help? I said it can’t be cured, I said the therapies we have, work. If eliminating one’s libido helps a person live their life, they should opt for it, paedophile or not. But choosing not to harm others isn’t difficult, unless there’s a lot more wrong with you than your sex drive being directed at children. You and me have no trouble respecting adults of whatever gender were attracted to, why should being a paedophile mean you’re any different?
You accuse me of not thinking this through… I laugh at you. Your last three paragraphs only work if you assume the condition automatically also makes a person evil and immoral. Yes, those people exist, and they should be locked away and never allowed into society. (again, WTF, a convicted pedo??? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?)
But the condition itself, that one is attracted to children, has nothing to do with a person’s capacity for moral action. One’s mind, does not need to obey one’s biology. You can choose to not eat, even when hungry, because you can understand that eating more than is healthy, is bad. A normal person would stay virgin all their life, if they didn’t find a willing partner, because not raping isn’t difficult.
Should we shun people who have done evil? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY! I don’t know which part of my comment made you think I believe otherwise. As for telling people who have suffered because of child rapists, that not all pedos are also rapists… Duh, but that’s also like telling a woman who was raped by a man, that not all men are rapists. She likely wont want to hear it, and should be helped through the trauma in whatever way is best for her. It would also be true. If you left a kid alone with a pedo who has the same moral compass as you and me, you’d never know they were a pedo, because they wouldn’t rape the kid.
This likely won’t get through to you, because you can’t separate the desires from the person. You can’t imagine someone desiring to do evil, not also being evil. That you can be hungry, without wanting to eat.
Just a heads up - I’ve stopped replying to the person you are debating with. They lack any concept of critical thinking, viewing from two sides, and resort to personal attacks when you don’t agree with them.
Strongly suspect they were either raised in a strict family values household, and/or were a victim of it themselves.
I could already sense that in their reply to me, those final three paragraphs were basically a character assassination attempt based on unfounded assumptions.
But that’s fine. Even when someone denies hearing what you have to say, only the truly stupid wont replay it in their minds at least a few times. I wont waste my efforts too much, but I’ll make my contribution towards hopefully one day getting this person to think.
Right. Because if I knew someone who was one, they’d openly admit that to me. (…)
Prisons are full of these.
Send a letter. Interact with one. Invite him over to your house once he gets released.
Go on. Walk the walk.
Prove that you’re more than a cowardly wannabe-dictator who enjoys listening to his own voice more than to common reason.
Do it.
Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? You accuse me of not thinking through how these things should be handled, then you suggest… That.
What the fucking fuck. You’re the one not thinking this through. Clearly you’re not even reading my comments past the first sentence.
Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
What is wrong with you, that you’re defending the worst that mankind has ever spawned and proceed to screams and insults once you’re asked to prove the worthiness of your own philosophy?
You’re the one not thinking this through.
Ditto.
But it’s typical for the likes of you - you always explode once asked to actually “be the change you wanna see in the world”.
Hey, you exploded first by spouting shit that made no sense if you had actually bothered reading what I had to say.
I’m just coming down to your level so we can continue to slug it out.
And what makes you so sure I’m not being the change I want to see? I already explained that if I were, admitting to it is not an option due to the stigma around the condition.
And the change you’re suggesting I need to engage in to prove myself, is fucking stupid. You’re attacking opinions I don’t even hold, it makes you look the fool.
You didn’t read my comment. I want nothing to do with fucking criminals. Stop suggesting otherwise, you lunatic.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It’s not gonna work, especially if you won’t even read and understand what I am actually trying to say.
Responding like this, anyone who reads our exchange is gonna look at your responses, and determine you’re the crazy one, because what you are saying makes no fucking sense in response to me if you actually read and understand what I’m saying. Is that what you want?
You didn’t read my comment.
You didn’t read mine. No wonder, given how self-absorbed you are…
I want nothing to do with fucking criminals.
Ah, so everything’s fine and dandy with ya, if they aren’t caught and sentenced? Brilliant strategy, milord!
Now, I give you simple challenge: prove that you’re willing to set an example and coexist with those loathsome deviants you want for the society to embrace.
If you can’t, if you don’t want to - admit that your ideas aren’t that good.
I did read yours. What makes you think otherwise?
If someone who wants to kill, never does it, they shouldn’t be put in prison. They shouldn’t even be hated or feared.
Someone who gets away with it, should be in prison. Someone who did kill, should be hated and feared.
I will admit only one thing, that you refuse to understand what I’m actually trying to say.
I wouldn’t need to prove shit, if you had the capacity to think clearly enough to understand, or even fucking read.
I disagree on the hard stop, but it would need to be really carefully considered.
“Heres a pile of underage everything you can explore all you want” - no.
“deal with urges and satisfy in a way that harms no one, that you can use in your own time away from everyone” - borderline
“As a part of your treatment, and to explore what your triggers are, and help us learn to mitigate these aspects so you can live a normal life” - should be considered.
I disagree with your disagreement.
Evil urges should be treated/stopped, not allowed. Especially since sick people can’t be trusted with maintaing control over their urges. What you’re suggesting wouldn’t be a wall. It’d be a gate leading to the next room.
Alot of your arguement is based on gateway and encouragement.
The arguement on what is evil is usually defined around things like causing deliberate harm, or morally reprehensible actions. Any who does take advantage of a child would absolutely fall into this category, but those who biologically or mentally are attracted to minors, through no fault of their own, and have never been involved with a minor as they know it is wrong also exist - are they meant to just suffer until they give in, or is there something that can be done as social to mitigate the risk and that does not harm anyone?
While they are different in many ways, everyone who was gay was considered evil, everyone not white was uncivilized and less than human. Protecting a minor will always take priority over satisfaction of an older person (as it should) but having it coded into you is not evil or immoral - acting upon it is. God, I have no idea how I would manage if I was told that liking women was evil (straight male), I could never think about or be close with my wife again, and told if I was to ever want it to stop I’d have to act gay.
Do not try to mud the water by making it a case of general philosophy.
Do not talk about gays/women when pedophilia is discussed, unless you think there’s direct connection between gays/women and pedophiles.
Pedophilia is evil, there’s nothing good about that, no redeeming value, nothing. It should be perceived as such, treated, possibly burnt with fire, not allowed or encouraged in any way. Such an approach does not limit anyone’s rights. It’s saving the rights of those that can’t defend themselves. No rocket physics here.
Im not sure if you are trolling, uneducated, or blind to critical assessment of two sides.
Your last paragraph was the exact viewpoint on the gay community, interracial marriage, hell even marrying different branches of Christianity was viewed the same way for centuries. We developed the same viewpoint to all of it - if it doesn’t harm others, not illegal (masterbation, role-playing and fanitising among two of more adults is legal) and its consenting for both just do it where its not our concern. My wife could dress up as a schoolgirl all she wants (or younger if it was our thing) and it’s perfectly legal and moral until i try stick my dick i ln an actual one.
The difference here is 1, no child can consent (morally, legally or maturity to do so) and 2, AI and sex toys don’t need consent.
There’s nothing trollish, undereducated or blind about opposing the idea of “cutting some slack” to the most twisted and dangerous elements that is trying to invade the society.
On the other hand, an attempt to compare gays/women to pedophiles certainly does warrant raising a brow.
If you’re planning to continue with apples & oranges tactic, you may as well stop now - I won’t waste time on manipulations that are meant to support pedophilia apologetics.
Y’all seem to have reached an impasse here in the realm of pure morality, so lets try something a little more grounded (and surely less controversial!) Political application. I won’t even slippery slope, I promise.
Lets suppose your favored political party has gained power (however briefly) and is able to push through legislation banning the consumption of any media depicting an immature person in a sexual context, regardless of whether it involved an actual child.
What would enforcement look like? You can’t simply follow the traffickers or CPS reports, as criminals could simply create the media for themselves on a private harddrive (say by drawing a picture or writing erotica) so law enforcement would need some way to investigate any citizen’s home and private spaces for potential contraband.
Do you think that there is a government currently on this planet clear enough of corrupted elements to avoid abusing this power to target their own political enemies?
Fuuuuck, what am I doing here. Again, I really am not trying to defend pedophilia, but your stance is just based on being pedantic and arrogant.
“The most evil.” Right. If you think someone having pedophile tendencies is the most evil someone can be or do… you know nothing about the world.
Good discussion, though. I wouldn’t want to be friends with a pedophile, much less being in their shoes. But adults fucking dolls, you know, those made out of plastic and rubber, shouldn’t be regulated by people like you.
Unambiguously no. No victim exists, so no crime should be created. Creating laws based on the standard of “well, something bad could, at some point, happen, but we don’t know if or when” is how we’ve arrived at the massive regulatory state we have now.
As for the first part. Since the images AI generates aren’t photographs but somewhat artistic renditions, they can essentialy be classified as art. And art containing nudity of minors is already regulated in many countries and a legal gray area in others.
For the second part. In my and the majorities opinion, no you can’t have “imitation” children for pedophiles, for the same reason why you can’t have “imitation” bodies for serial killers or “imitation” buildings for arsonists. It is not our social duty to provide an outlet to people that can’t function in society. Giving leeway to evil, gives it a chance to bundle up and organize, making it harder to fight against - see for example drug cartels or sexual misconduct of the church. Giving an outlet is one step closer to normalization of any crime.
I also know that we tend to close our eyes on some peoples pedophilic tendencies like Elvis Presley or Charlie Chaplin because of their “social value”. Which is probably why this question comes up far more often than something along the lines of should it be okay to murder people?. A good quote comes from the comedian Jim Jefferies: “How talented do you have to be to fuck a kid?”. Most famous pedophiles are innl part a product of their enviroment. The entertainment industry, is basically crimes on top of crimes. Drugs, union busting, fraud, money laundering, verbal, sexual and physical abuse and pedophilia. To bring this back to your question let me paraphrase it. Should we give leeway to pedophiles? I say no, I would gladly sacrifice a couple of songs from my playlist or a few DVDs if it meant that the crimes of those people would be undone.
no you can’t have “imitation” children for pedophiles, for the same reason why you can’t have “imitation” bodies for serial killers or “imitation” buildings for arsonists. It is not our social duty to provide an outlet to people that can’t function in society.
I mean you literally can do those things. Make up as many ballistic dummies and do whatever you like to them. You’ll run into some regulatory issues burning down your own building, but that’s only because of concern for fire spreading, not out of some noble concern for buildings. But if you have an old building on your land, and call the fire department in advance, it’s not uncommon for them to arrange training fires, assuming there isn’t much risk to surrounding stuff.
And it’s hardly a “social duty to provide” to not arrest people for something. Nobody is arguing that the government should be wasting money to give these things away. Just that individuals who obtain the on their own should not be criminalized since they aren’t hurting anyone
I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood you question then. I thought with “giving access” you’ve ment it like perscribtion drugs for health care. Basically, professionally made, but distributed with government substitute. Obviously I was against that.
However, I’m against limitation on personal freedoms, especially if it’s something you’re doing on you own time and property. In that case you can go crazy and make your own AI model do the most degenerate thing imaginable if it pleases you. But we all know that this behavior will not keep to itself. Somebody will start profiting from this, and this is in my opinion where I draw the line. As soon as there’s any form of distribution or 2nd party involvement the generated “art” should be subject to the law. And in extend, I think any sort of suspicious behavior or expression towards sexualization of minors should be at least flagged and considered if any actual criminal behavior should arise.
So what if someone starts selling it? There still isn’t an actual victim involved, so why should people be effectively punished for it (yes, I consider extra government scrutiny and/or surveillance beyond the norm to be a punishment)? Should we force everyone who buys a gun to be under extra surveillance since they might break some other law at some other point in time? Install government-mandated GPS trackers in every car to monitor traffic violations?
Here’s a very simple but likely scenario. Somebody who’s keen in the AI field feeds his model a bunch of pictures from adult websites. A lot of different pictures from random actresses on PH for example. This already may cause copyrighting issues since none of the women explicitly agreed for their pictures to be used that way, but thats beside the point. Good, now the model knows what porn is. Now that person takes the child pictures of their friends Facebook, focusing only on one child. Generating porn images will now heavily resemble that one child.\
If the model is trained well enough to generate convincing images, how is this a victimless crime?
Right now there is no way to reliably determine if an image is generated or geniune, and the quality of the generated images will only increase with time. We can’t simply rely on the kindness of a persons hearth to watermark all the images as AI generated. And even if the images are clearly marked as fake, nothing stops others from using the images maliciously against the child and their family anyways. This isn’t a hypothetical, this is actually happening right now, hopefully less with children but definitely with celebrities that have a lot of public images available.
The person generating their own porn won’t necessarily go out of their way to insure anonymity of their generated images. Just like I and many others are often times interested in a specific adult actress/actor because they represent features we are attracted to, I’d expect that pedophiles are most likely also interested in specific children. This sort of negates the “no victim” notion. While yes there is no actual harm done to the victim, the consequences will likely still affect them and their family mentally and financially for the rest of their life.
Thats also the reason why we have joyride laws. Nobody is allowed to just get in your running car and go for a joyride, even though they fill up the tank at the end and bring it back in perfect condition. Technically no harm was done to you, but what if you had an important appointment that you now missed, who would be liable? Eventualities are always something that laws have to consider, because they have to serve as a deterrent to the actual act.
In the first case you gave, the fact that it’s a child is hardly the relevant aspect as much as publishing false and misleading imagery of someone. At least to me, the problem with children being involved in sexual things is that children can’t properly give consent, and since we’re looking at a situation without consent (regardless of the age of the person), it’s not something that would change if a kid is involved, whether you think it should be legal or not.
Personally, I lean towards the idea that it should be legal since I don’t support the idea that someone “owns” their own image, and that so long as it isn’t being presented as true information, which would be defamation, people are free to make whatever content they like featuring someone’s image, even if the subject doesn’t like it.
Regarding the example of joyriding, there is harm done. The joyrider deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests. That’s a specific and provable harm inherent to the crime. This is the entire principle behind the concept of “conversion”. Even if you rightfully have possession of something I own, it’s still illegal for you to use it in a manner I have not approved of.
Personally, I lean towards the idea that it should be legal since I don’t support the idea that someone “owns” their own image, and that so long as it isn’t being presented as true information, which would be defamation, people are free to make whatever content they like featuring someone’s image, even if the subject doesn’t like it.
I guess this is where our opinions differ, because I lean towards the contrary.
If you rephrase:
The joyrider deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests.
To:
The deepfaker deprived me of my rightfully owned property for some period of time, and used it against my interests.
under consideration that I see images as intellectual property, you can see where my approach to this problem came from and why I specifically used joyriding as a fitting example.
True. Our difference in opinion largely stems from how we view intellectual property. Personally, I believe that intellectual property should be extremely limited in scope, such that it only amounts to a limited ability for distribution of works.
IIRC studies showed that in areas where fake CP was available real victims of pedos decreased.
I don’t have a solid opinion on this. I know very little on the topic. I’m inclined to say no, unless very solid evidence exists that more children are being molested as a result of it.
