this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
543 points (97.4% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
40814 readers
4806 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sadly there doesn't seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it's super controversial to begin with.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because "oh it's just a drawing".
(mind you it's important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn't even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they're real or drawn, cannot consent).
On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by "disarming" paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it's actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won't be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they'll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.
Again the problem is we don't have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn't be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another....
And of course the moment one tries to debate for "on the other hand", that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they're literally campaigning for the legalisation of children's sexualisation in their specific way... which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.
Some things there's just no room for a counter-argument.
It's like trying to talk about the positive policies Hitler enacted. Yea, sure, he probably had a couple good ideas, still not gonna be the guy to try and convince you about it.
By your logic, people shouldn't play Call of Duty either because it enables the core behavior of shooting people with guns to be socially acceptable because "oh it's just a video game".
By your logic, any movie or book depicting any illegal act shouldn't exist because it would "enable the core behavior to be socially acceptable".
Sorry, that one doesn't hold water for me.
It depends on why people are engaging with those things, and what it is they think they're doing.
When people talk about fictional pedophilia "satiating the person's needs so they don't go out and commit a real crime," they're kind of tipping their hand, don't you think? A gun-game player doesn't actually want to kill anyone, but apparently fiction and non-fiction are veeery similar concepts in the mind of a lolicon.
Personally I think in a free society something should be legal by default, unless it is proven to cause harm, not the other way around like you suggest.
And I think this kind of mindset is poison to democracy
Okay, repeat after me:
👏 SEXUALISING 👏 CHILDREN 👏 CAUSES 👏 HARM 👏
It's that simple.
and no, naming a mental illness (paedophilia) what it is isn't "poison to democracy".
Repeat after me now:
👏USING👏HAND👏CLAP/STAR/WHATEVER👏EMOJI👏DOESN'T👏MAKE👏WHAT👏YOU👏SAY👏MORE👏IMPACTFUL👏
There's a very clear gap in knowledge that is being raised here, and it's genuinely unknown whether fictional materials increase or decrease the rates of abuse. Judging by more general examples, it is most likely to decrease, but we need more data.
Also, pedophilia is not classified as mental illness. Pedophilic disorder is, but that requires specific criteria to be filled, namely being an active danger to children (getting into child abuse or consuming CSAM involving real children) and/or having distress about being a pedophile (for example, hating oneself and being suicidal).
You didn't "name" an illness you talked about ad hominem attacks
Calling a paedophile (someone sexually attracted to children) a paedophile, is calling the disorder by its name. It's not ad hominem in any manner.
But the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between a paedophile (a person afflicted by a disorder they usually do NOT want, someone who deserves appropriate psychiatric help), and a child rapist (someone who has raped a child, and deserves no empathy, but appropriate steps to ensure they never harm a child) is quite telling.
Do you think that lolicon/csam/etc creates pedophiles?
It's personally revolting, but I think it's at least worth considering whether something like lolicon can reduce chances of a pedophile acting on their urges.
It's true, but this Is a problem that we as a society need to address, prevention is key, we owe it to the victims to do everything in our power to minimize the risks