That mascot is a child. Please don’t make porn of fictional children even if you disagree with the politics or religion of that fictional child you’re making porn out of. Child porn is a bad thing
If she’s drawn as an adult like the pucture used for the pist I don’t think it would be a problem anymore, you can’t really lock down a fictional character’s age it just comes down to features their drawn with and I guess if someone feels the need to go out of thier way to give an age
don’t know I just always hated it since elementary school, I want to see grammarly removed from the face of the earth and would pay good money to make sure no one takes their place not even joking about that
Doesn’t matter. It is a depiction of a child. The “Oh it’s actually a 10 billion year old dragon, she just looks and acts like she’s 8” is not a credible defense. And don’t pull “that’s not what I said or am implying”, regardless it’s an image of a child no matter how you try spinning it, real or not. CP is CP.
I’m not going to come up with a justification either way because really I don’t care, but it’s probably not a good idea to label everything as CP, unless it actually is.
Is it a child? What age are they? I couldn’t find it anywhere. Looking at the official image it’s hard to say. She could be 7 or 30. The Internet is going to Internet.
But this “CP is CP” thing is a little odd. I mean without knowing her age you’re just assuming. The C in CP is child, are they a child or are you just upset that you think they kinda look like one? It’s also way weird, she’s not real. Do you get upset about anime dogs being killed? Do you get upset about violence in anime? I mean what if it is some old being in a young body? Isn’t CP wrong because they don’t know better and are helpless victims to the F’d up thing. That’s not the case here. I’m honestly just confused.
Your implying, that so long as information can’t be validated and the image can’t be verified as a real person it’s ok. Cool, all you need is a filter and CP is fine!? Pictures of hate crimes are cool because it’s just a picture?
What I find weird is the number of people in Lemmy who are trying to define a grey line when it’s CP and when it’s not. Reddit had a very real problem with CP and starting to think Lemmy very much does.
Is it? You keep saying it’s a child, I’m trying to stay objective, is it? Pictures of real hate crimes are bad. But plenty of shows and movies depict hate crimes and you don’t seem to be fighting that fight, seems like inconsistent morals.
Yes yes, I get it, you’re against CP, I am too. My point is this isn’t CP, this isn’t a child. This is a make believe spiritual being that you think looks like a child. Hell in the pic shown she clearly isn’t a child. I mean if you take a kid and draw a picture of what you think they’d look like as an adult is that CP? The pic isn’t a child. I mean, honest question.
What I find weird is the number of people in Lemmy who are trying to define a grey line when it’s CP and when it’s not.
Don’t you instantly lose any kind of validity with that comment?
You are laying down the law, you are saying what is, and is not true,with no basis to reality or logic or reason. You are just saying what you say is true, and you cannot be argued with. You don’t see how fundamentally messed up that is how completely insane you sound?
You’re upset about a drawing. A drawing that isn’t even of a real thing.
You are upset about someone’s imagination and then further upset by your interpretation of the drawing of their imagination.
I agree. Its always a tough stance. Its like ultimately I want nazis to be able to speak freely as long as they don’t actually do the stuff they spout. As far as im concerned when you try to ban stuff not in reality you are in the realm of trying to ban thought.
I mean, Japan has had csam cartoons for decades. They have a lower CSA rate compared to the USA. Not saying it’s totally related, but it doesn’t seem like if someone has access to cartoon csam they will normalize it and do it in real life.
Sure, the same way video games normalize stealing cars. Or the same way movies normalize killing people. I mean at some point you gotta stop blaming media.
So if legalized porn reduces rapes as studies show, how to we figure out if this existing allows for less abuse to kids, or if it spawns long term interest
Cartoon csam has been legal in Japan for decades. They have a lower CSA per Capita than the USA.
There are some brain studies that show the area of the brain that is responsible for caring for children is butt up next to the part of the brain that is responsible for sexual pleasures. The study suggests that there might be a misfiring of the synapse between the different sides of the brain that might cause someone to be a pedo. These people don’t experience sexual pleasures without thinking about kids. It’s literally a disability.
My opinion is that we don’t know if removing AI generated csam would make things worse for real life kids or not. But flat out banning it without proper research would be irresponsible.
Thanks for the thoughts on such, the way people were only downvoting originally and not providing any actual explanation to why, had me thinking it was just going to have been dumb to ask.
2, you’re building your own straw man here. You’ve set up an extremely narrow condition under which this particular type of pedophilia is acceptable. Prove to me that that’s the norm, that it’s a typical use scenario, and that people looking at that crap are exclusively looking at loli, and not images meant to look like real people, and there’s a debate to be had there. But if you think any of that is true you’re lying to yourself. Sexualization of others is not going to happen in a vacuum under sterile conditions, it’s going to bleed in to real life.
Prove to me that removing this will not bleed into real life even more than it is not? You can’t either.
What I can prove is that Japan has csam cartoons for decades and they have less CSA per Capita than the USA. Is it possible that the Japanese know something we don’t? Who knows.
Can you prove to me that the AI trained models were done with real csam materials? If so, not reporting this to the FBI seems irresponsible.
Generative models does not work like that, if it were so, how do you explain that I can generate a picture of a purple six legged cat throwing lasers from the eyes in space?
In a very very very simplified way, the models are trained that from noise it de noises it until the image is “restored”. A part of the model learns to remove noise until a drawing of a child is restored, another learns to restore the image of a drawing of a nude woman. Basically you say to the model that from noise it has to restore the drawing of a nude child it combines the two proceses (also it is trained to combine things in a way that makes sense).
Sure but like I asked above, if porn reduces rapes, how do we know that this (gross) doesn’t reduce children being sexually assaulted. I can’t think of a single safe way it could be tested or monitored to find the better long term evil
The “kink” you are picking is drawn child porn. I don’t care if nobody was directly hurt by your consumption of drawn child porn you are consuming child porn. You are a pedophile. Somebody attracted to children sexually.
I don’t care if studies showing pedophiles who watch drawn child porn aren’t likely to offend. They are pedophiles. I know it’s a wild thing to state but I don’t like pedophiles. The debate on legality due to harm reduction is another thing all-together but at no point did I bring that up. I only asked that we not support or make AI porn of fictional children.
Your support of a subset of child porn, particularly AI and drawn is noted though. Thank you for stating as much.
They are pedophiles. I know it’s a wild thing to state but I don’t like pedophiles.
This makes sense and all, but a pedophile who hasn’t harmed a child hasn’t caused any harm. These people have a disorder that should be treated, but this isn’t always easy. If this can give them some outlet that prevents any actual harm being done to children, then that can easily be argued to be a net positive.
I prefer these people jack off to AI porn over real child porn or worse, them turning to actual sexual abuse of children. What’s wrong with preventing child abuse?
I would agree if we see some meta-analysis suggesting this but the evidence is small towards the effect. The studies you state in other comments are inconclusive, are not the majority, and only show mild effects. This is not scientific fact yet and all evidence shows a mild effect at best.
Even if it did though they are still a pedophile. They are masturbating to child porn. We should not accept that as a positive thing and we should not support people who make child porn. These are the people who need to seek help most. If part of that help is jacking it to drawn child porn so be it but be it so under the care of a professional.
The fact that one doesn’t offend only stops one from being a monster. A child molester, or child rapist. A pedophile is still immoral.
My issue is that child porn is inherently wrong. It is a fundamental negative whether drawn or generated. Some things are not about material harm they are about base morality. Sexualizing children is a fundamental wrong.
If the only thing stopping you from raping, molesting, or otherwise harming a child is drawn child porn you are not a good person. That is terrifying, and disgusting.
Lastly, our brains are neuroplastic. Anyone can develop a fetish through constant exposure to something in a positive sexual setting. Something may disgust you, say poop, but if you jack off to the thought long enough you will develop a fetish. This, unlike the claim that drawn child porn is helpful, is well known. Harm to children or not this creates more pedophiles. People who think of children in a sexual manner
No sane person is denying what you’re saying. With a
Children of my own, I want to do anything and everything possible to protect them.
That said, there are research that people who consume cartoon csam that haven’t done real life abuse. They have a problem. Taking away something that doesn’t hurt anyone might not improve our protection of our children, but make things worse.
If a pedophile sexualizes fake AI children in his basement but is a productive human in society and never acts in real life. Do you think this person deserves to be in jail?
“Thanks for calling the FBI, how may I direct your call?”
“I like to discuss what actually constitutes child pornography and how to rectify the laws that are causing my beautiful sensual artwork to be unfairly maligned on the internet.”
“I couldn’t agree more. What’s your home address, we’d love to hear your complaint in person”
Are they defending it? Seems more like they’re saying that the US legal system doesn’t consider it to meet their classification of child pornography, as opposed to saying that it’s okay.
It would be like saying the UK criminal justice system only considers penile penetration to be rape, with other forms being folded under sexual assault. That doesn’t mean that they’re defending rape, and saying it’s just sexual assault.
That’s you defending it. CP is not magically going to increase because it gets banned, it’s not fucking smoking for teenagers. It’s literally grown ass men being fucking pedos, who feed into this shit. It’s like giving a taste of some drugs to an addict. You think they’re not going to go further into their addiction?
Holy shit. Before you “ackchually” maybe you should look up this shit? Images or video of a minor that depict an act of sex abuse against an identifiable minor CAN include drawings. There have been some cases where people have been convicted of only that (in other cases the person usually had “real” CSAM so it’s hard to determine what the outcome would have been). Here’s a highlighted excerpt from a case in the 5th circuit from a great thread literally about this:
And, yes, before you push your glasses up your nose and “buh buh buh”, it does say the charge is obscenity. But, again, I encourage you to read the full thread linked below to understand why that doesn’t fucking matter at all.
The thread this is by someone that has extensive experience in trust and safety in social media. This very long thread has a lot of information you should read before you “okay, dickhead” and then slippery slope something that already happened:
I shouldn’t need to define child porn but here’s a definition:
Sexually gratifying content involving the sexualization of children.
This fictional child is a child. Porn of that child is child porn. Drawn, generated, or any other way this is child porn.
I’ve heard the “it’s just pixels” argument before and can’t accept that. If we can recognize that the pixels are pornographic, that they represent the character lucy, and that lucy is a child we can agree that this is porn of a child. Child porn.
If somebody jacks off to the thought of a child they are a pedophile. Yes.
The cartoon has a childs proportions. It has a childs body. The creator has defined it as a child. You are unironically doing the “it’s a thousand year old dragon” shit.
You are a danger to the kids you claim to have. Do you jack off to the thought of their naked bodies? Do you think that would be ok to do? If you do nothing to harm them directly by your own reasoning it would be ok right?
No. That is abhorent. Please get professional help
No I don’t jerk off to kids. I am approaching this mental health issue with an open mind and not emotionally like some people here.
As someone who suffers from a different mental issue, unrelated to pedos, you have to understand that people with a disability don’t want to do some of the things they are doing.
Pedos know they have a mental illness. They don’t want to do the things they are doing. If watching and consuming AI cartoon csam keeps them from acting out their urges in real life then yes please do that. Seek help at the same time.
I can’t guarantee that keeping AI cartoon csam will reduce CSA. But you can’t guarantee removing it can either. So let’s all have an adult conversation here.
That mascot is a child. Please don’t make porn of fictional children even if you disagree with the politics or religion of that fictional child you’re making porn out of. Child porn is a bad thing
She is really a 2,000 year old
dragonchild of god so it’s totally ok.-some priest
That seems Kanna specific 👀
Actually that seems fairly on brand and run of the mill for anime.
If she’s drawn as an adult like the pucture used for the pist I don’t think it would be a problem anymore, you can’t really lock down a fictional character’s age it just comes down to features their drawn with and I guess if someone feels the need to go out of thier way to give an age
You have to draw her with an eye patch, to show up that she’s the grow up version.
I used one in my original post I guess I rushed posting on my break and didn’t get someone to proof read it first
Why do you hate punctuation and just basic grammar?
don’t know I just always hated it since elementary school, I want to see grammarly removed from the face of the earth and would pay good money to make sure no one takes their place not even joking about that
You used a comma you have been taken by the cult of comprehensibility
Removed by mod
Dude, she isn’t real.
Doesn’t matter. It is a depiction of a child. The “Oh it’s actually a 10 billion year old dragon, she just looks and acts like she’s 8” is not a credible defense. And don’t pull “that’s not what I said or am implying”, regardless it’s an image of a child no matter how you try spinning it, real or not. CP is CP.
I’m not going to come up with a justification either way because really I don’t care, but it’s probably not a good idea to label everything as CP, unless it actually is.
I’m not giving the Chinese myth dragon “defence”. She’s not real. Full stop. It’s okay if you don’t like it
Those poor victimized pixels…
Is it a child? What age are they? I couldn’t find it anywhere. Looking at the official image it’s hard to say. She could be 7 or 30. The Internet is going to Internet.
But this “CP is CP” thing is a little odd. I mean without knowing her age you’re just assuming. The C in CP is child, are they a child or are you just upset that you think they kinda look like one? It’s also way weird, she’s not real. Do you get upset about anime dogs being killed? Do you get upset about violence in anime? I mean what if it is some old being in a young body? Isn’t CP wrong because they don’t know better and are helpless victims to the F’d up thing. That’s not the case here. I’m honestly just confused.
It is a depiction of a child.
Your implying, that so long as information can’t be validated and the image can’t be verified as a real person it’s ok. Cool, all you need is a filter and CP is fine!? Pictures of hate crimes are cool because it’s just a picture?
What I find weird is the number of people in Lemmy who are trying to define a grey line when it’s CP and when it’s not. Reddit had a very real problem with CP and starting to think Lemmy very much does.
Is it? You keep saying it’s a child, I’m trying to stay objective, is it? Pictures of real hate crimes are bad. But plenty of shows and movies depict hate crimes and you don’t seem to be fighting that fight, seems like inconsistent morals.
Yes yes, I get it, you’re against CP, I am too. My point is this isn’t CP, this isn’t a child. This is a make believe spiritual being that you think looks like a child. Hell in the pic shown she clearly isn’t a child. I mean if you take a kid and draw a picture of what you think they’d look like as an adult is that CP? The pic isn’t a child. I mean, honest question.
Don’t you instantly lose any kind of validity with that comment?
You are laying down the law, you are saying what is, and is not true,with no basis to reality or logic or reason. You are just saying what you say is true, and you cannot be argued with. You don’t see how fundamentally messed up that is how completely insane you sound?
You’re upset about a drawing. A drawing that isn’t even of a real thing.
You are upset about someone’s imagination and then further upset by your interpretation of the drawing of their imagination.
Removed by mod
I agree. Its always a tough stance. Its like ultimately I want nazis to be able to speak freely as long as they don’t actually do the stuff they spout. As far as im concerned when you try to ban stuff not in reality you are in the realm of trying to ban thought.
It’s not victimless. It normalizes the sexualization of children.
Do you have any research that backs this up? Because there is research that claims the opposite and that this can work as a preventative measure.
People who downvoted you are lazy do a quick Google search on the topic.
I mean, Japan has had csam cartoons for decades. They have a lower CSA rate compared to the USA. Not saying it’s totally related, but it doesn’t seem like if someone has access to cartoon csam they will normalize it and do it in real life.
Sure, the same way video games normalize stealing cars. Or the same way movies normalize killing people. I mean at some point you gotta stop blaming media.
It is already normalized.
And GTA / video games normalizes mass shootings?
So if legalized porn reduces rapes as studies show, how to we figure out if this existing allows for less abuse to kids, or if it spawns long term interest
Cartoon csam has been legal in Japan for decades. They have a lower CSA per Capita than the USA.
There are some brain studies that show the area of the brain that is responsible for caring for children is butt up next to the part of the brain that is responsible for sexual pleasures. The study suggests that there might be a misfiring of the synapse between the different sides of the brain that might cause someone to be a pedo. These people don’t experience sexual pleasures without thinking about kids. It’s literally a disability.
My opinion is that we don’t know if removing AI generated csam would make things worse for real life kids or not. But flat out banning it without proper research would be irresponsible.
Removed by mod
Maybe if self hosted, but if the AI is hosted by someone else… I imagine it would be as easy as key words being reported/flagged
Removed by mod
Thanks for the thoughts on such, the way people were only downvoting originally and not providing any actual explanation to why, had me thinking it was just going to have been dumb to ask.
deleted by creator
The only people that sexualize children are pedophiles.
Removed by mod
A: all models are trained on something
2, you’re building your own straw man here. You’ve set up an extremely narrow condition under which this particular type of pedophilia is acceptable. Prove to me that that’s the norm, that it’s a typical use scenario, and that people looking at that crap are exclusively looking at loli, and not images meant to look like real people, and there’s a debate to be had there. But if you think any of that is true you’re lying to yourself. Sexualization of others is not going to happen in a vacuum under sterile conditions, it’s going to bleed in to real life.
Prove to me that removing this will not bleed into real life even more than it is not? You can’t either.
What I can prove is that Japan has csam cartoons for decades and they have less CSA per Capita than the USA. Is it possible that the Japanese know something we don’t? Who knows.
Can you prove to me that the AI trained models were done with real csam materials? If so, not reporting this to the FBI seems irresponsible.
Generative models does not work like that, if it were so, how do you explain that I can generate a picture of a purple six legged cat throwing lasers from the eyes in space?
In a very very very simplified way, the models are trained that from noise it de noises it until the image is “restored”. A part of the model learns to remove noise until a drawing of a child is restored, another learns to restore the image of a drawing of a nude woman. Basically you say to the model that from noise it has to restore the drawing of a nude child it combines the two proceses (also it is trained to combine things in a way that makes sense).
That’s like saying the only people who bake wedding cakes are bakers…
I mean yeah. But what of it? Or are you already implying a level of abuse and connotation to the mental disorder?
Bakers are people who bake for people who don’t bake for themselves…
The act of baking does indeed make you a baker. Definitionally.
Just because you aren’t going pro doesn’t mean you aren’t making a cake.
That’s a word salad I can’t decipher. Sorry.
Me making box mix cake that tastes like ass doesn’t make me a baker. That’s silly.
Sure but like I asked above, if porn reduces rapes, how do we know that this (gross) doesn’t reduce children being sexually assaulted. I can’t think of a single safe way it could be tested or monitored to find the better long term evil
The “kink” you are picking is drawn child porn. I don’t care if nobody was directly hurt by your consumption of drawn child porn you are consuming child porn. You are a pedophile. Somebody attracted to children sexually.
I don’t care if studies showing pedophiles who watch drawn child porn aren’t likely to offend. They are pedophiles. I know it’s a wild thing to state but I don’t like pedophiles. The debate on legality due to harm reduction is another thing all-together but at no point did I bring that up. I only asked that we not support or make AI porn of fictional children.
Your support of a subset of child porn, particularly AI and drawn is noted though. Thank you for stating as much.
This makes sense and all, but a pedophile who hasn’t harmed a child hasn’t caused any harm. These people have a disorder that should be treated, but this isn’t always easy. If this can give them some outlet that prevents any actual harm being done to children, then that can easily be argued to be a net positive.
I prefer these people jack off to AI porn over real child porn or worse, them turning to actual sexual abuse of children. What’s wrong with preventing child abuse?
I would agree if we see some meta-analysis suggesting this but the evidence is small towards the effect. The studies you state in other comments are inconclusive, are not the majority, and only show mild effects. This is not scientific fact yet and all evidence shows a mild effect at best.
Even if it did though they are still a pedophile. They are masturbating to child porn. We should not accept that as a positive thing and we should not support people who make child porn. These are the people who need to seek help most. If part of that help is jacking it to drawn child porn so be it but be it so under the care of a professional.
The fact that one doesn’t offend only stops one from being a monster. A child molester, or child rapist. A pedophile is still immoral.
My issue is that child porn is inherently wrong. It is a fundamental negative whether drawn or generated. Some things are not about material harm they are about base morality. Sexualizing children is a fundamental wrong.
If the only thing stopping you from raping, molesting, or otherwise harming a child is drawn child porn you are not a good person. That is terrifying, and disgusting.
Lastly, our brains are neuroplastic. Anyone can develop a fetish through constant exposure to something in a positive sexual setting. Something may disgust you, say poop, but if you jack off to the thought long enough you will develop a fetish. This, unlike the claim that drawn child porn is helpful, is well known. Harm to children or not this creates more pedophiles. People who think of children in a sexual manner
No sane person is denying what you’re saying. With a Children of my own, I want to do anything and everything possible to protect them.
That said, there are research that people who consume cartoon csam that haven’t done real life abuse. They have a problem. Taking away something that doesn’t hurt anyone might not improve our protection of our children, but make things worse.
deleted by creator
If a pedophile sexualizes fake AI children in his basement but is a productive human in society and never acts in real life. Do you think this person deserves to be in jail?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It’s a fucking drawing, who the fuck cares.
Removed by mod
The feds define it as:
Visual depiction includes cartoons.
Don’t argue with me, call the feds and debate it with them. Maybe give them your hard drive, too. That’s probably better for everyone.
“Thanks for calling the FBI, how may I direct your call?”
“I like to discuss what actually constitutes child pornography and how to rectify the laws that are causing my beautiful sensual artwork to be unfairly maligned on the internet.”
“I couldn’t agree more. What’s your home address, we’d love to hear your complaint in person”
Does a cartoon character actually count as a person?
Same energy as “I’m actually an ephebophile!”
Turns out with laws definitions can be pretty important. Here it’s the whole difference between if your quoted definition fits the situation or not.
Removed by mod
Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.
Which seems fine in spirit, but we don’t really want the letter of the law making something like this
O/-<
illegal
The fuck…you pedo shits are some brazen fuckers aren’t you.
Edit: lots of neckbeard ass pedos apparently in this thread. CP is fucking CP even if it’s AI or fucking Anime you sick fucks
Removed by mod
Might be the fact that you’re defending this shit and acting like it’s completely ok.
Are they defending it? Seems more like they’re saying that the US legal system doesn’t consider it to meet their classification of child pornography, as opposed to saying that it’s okay.
It would be like saying the UK criminal justice system only considers penile penetration to be rape, with other forms being folded under sexual assault. That doesn’t mean that they’re defending rape, and saying it’s just sexual assault.
https://lemmy.world/comment/13281179
Dude literally was saying this isn’t CP…
Where did I do that?
https://lemmy.world/comment/13282924
That’s you defending it. CP is not magically going to increase because it gets banned, it’s not fucking smoking for teenagers. It’s literally grown ass men being fucking pedos, who feed into this shit. It’s like giving a taste of some drugs to an addict. You think they’re not going to go further into their addiction?
I said don’t argue with me. You know what to do with your hard drive.
Removed by mod
Holy shit. Before you “ackchually” maybe you should look up this shit? Images or video of a minor that depict an act of sex abuse against an identifiable minor CAN include drawings. There have been some cases where people have been convicted of only that (in other cases the person usually had “real” CSAM so it’s hard to determine what the outcome would have been). Here’s a highlighted excerpt from a case in the 5th circuit from a great thread literally about this:
https://bsky.app/profile/jackscellphone.bsky.social/post/3ksissuq2ft2w
And, yes, before you push your glasses up your nose and “buh buh buh”, it does say the charge is obscenity. But, again, I encourage you to read the full thread linked below to understand why that doesn’t fucking matter at all.
The thread this is by someone that has extensive experience in trust and safety in social media. This very long thread has a lot of information you should read before you “okay, dickhead” and then slippery slope something that already happened:
https://bsky.app/profile/rahaeli.bsky.social/post/3kuuk2nlkrk2a
Oh good.
Well, the Supreme Court says it’s art and that means it’s protected under free speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
I shouldn’t need to define child porn but here’s a definition:
Sexually gratifying content involving the sexualization of children.
This fictional child is a child. Porn of that child is child porn. Drawn, generated, or any other way this is child porn.
I’ve heard the “it’s just pixels” argument before and can’t accept that. If we can recognize that the pixels are pornographic, that they represent the character lucy, and that lucy is a child we can agree that this is porn of a child. Child porn.
How does this not match the term “child porn”.
It is drawn porn of a child
Removed by mod
Holy shit man what the fuck are you on about.
If somebody jacks off to the thought of a child they are a pedophile. Yes.
The cartoon has a childs proportions. It has a childs body. The creator has defined it as a child. You are unironically doing the “it’s a thousand year old dragon” shit.
You are a danger to the kids you claim to have. Do you jack off to the thought of their naked bodies? Do you think that would be ok to do? If you do nothing to harm them directly by your own reasoning it would be ok right?
No. That is abhorent. Please get professional help
No I don’t jerk off to kids. I am approaching this mental health issue with an open mind and not emotionally like some people here.
As someone who suffers from a different mental issue, unrelated to pedos, you have to understand that people with a disability don’t want to do some of the things they are doing.
Pedos know they have a mental illness. They don’t want to do the things they are doing. If watching and consuming AI cartoon csam keeps them from acting out their urges in real life then yes please do that. Seek help at the same time.
I can’t guarantee that keeping AI cartoon csam will reduce CSA. But you can’t guarantee removing it can either. So let’s all have an adult conversation here.