I recall hearing an interesting point about why pedophiles are attracted to children. The argument states that just before the onset of puberty, attraction to children of the same age can and does occur. These attractions are normal until puberty occurs, at which point the child undergoing puberty starts to become more attracted to physically mature features.
The point is, pedophiles who claim it is "natural" to be attracted to pre-pubescent features are half-right and wholly-wrong. People who never grow past that attraction are developmentally or emotionally stunted, likely outcast weirdos who never fit in. It's pretty obvious why lolicons are lolicons.
Not particularly revolutionary, just a point I rarely see expressed in these discussions. I wouldn't want a world devoid of what is healthy, and I believe we have an overly repressive attitude in some ways to sexuality and nudity and overly promiscuous in others. Loli porn is out the window imo.
Nobody really understands where the desire for pre-pubescent attraction stems from. With trauma we hypothesize that people have become paralyzed and trapped in the moment of their abuse for the rest of their lives, so much so they can only relate to children sexually. That their abuse scars them so deeply it changes them profoundly. Which is why we treat this so harshly.
As far as organic wise? Nobody knows. The evolutionary hypothesis falls flat because 10 year olds can't have children and some pedophiles are indiscriminate when it comes to gender, so sexual orientation is skewed as well. It could be stunted growth, but again, hard to say.
We don't really understand much about pedophiles. Basically alot of the research out there is how to catch them and stop them.
I've always leaned hard toward the "drawings/art should not be censored" side but nowadays with the advancement of CGI and how fucking convincing deepfakes can be I'm not as sure. I still believe in free speech and expression but frankly the thought of hyper-realistic fake CP doesn't sit right. The laws governing what is considered CP and the levels of offense are going to have to be made very specific.
I guess it comes back to the argument of whether CP-type content keeps pedophiles' urges sated, or whether they continue to seek out worse and more graphic content until they eventually offend. I'm sure it's different depending on the person, the same way normal people can use vanilla porn occasionally with no issue vs the types who need increasingly deviant shit to get off and it becomes an actual problem.
These images are already illegal. Drawings and computer generated imagery are fine but they become CP if they are indistinguishable from real children.
Deepfakes are child porn. People have been arrested for putting children's heads on pornstars bodies before. Like literally cutting out and pasting, the crudest method for making porn. So people will be going to jail if they attempted the same virtually.
That NVIDIA tech where they made fake faces with composites of real faces would be illegal if used to create fake child porn.
The thing is the law is already in place and separates out highly stylized drawings like loli and shota vs. Deep fakes and computer generated or virtual child porn. This law is there because LEOs shouldn't have to waste their time sifting though what is or isnt CP.
So not to worry, the law is there.
Drawings and computer generated graphics are just that. Not actual children, You or me might find lolicon stuff gross, unappealing, etc, but it's not the same thing as actual children being abused, and banning drawings because they feature offensive content is far more dangerous then not doing so. Generally speaking, the government's monopoly on force should only be invoked when it is really and genuinely necessary to do so, and what are basically cartoons do not represent that kind of risk.
Pretty much this. Not to mention prosecuting drawings takes away from prosecuting people who produce and sell this imagery and the abusers who trade it like trading cards.
