I don't really buy into the view that prevents them from harming real children. It might actually do the opposite:

Critics of increased accessibility to sexually charged representations of children argue that consistent consumption of this media could, in pedophiles' minds, legitimize sexual relations with minors. Just as sexually violent pornography can have a corrosive effect on real-life romantic relations by normalizing potentially harmful behavior, the consumption of child porn could ease the stigma surrounding pedophilia. It depends, primarily, on how prosocial the pedophile is. link

At first I was on the I don't do it but don't care end. And then I saw two compelling points; 1. that it is used to normalize the real deal. And 2. I've seen several people outright state that this stuff was used as part of the grooming tactics.

^Disturbing about the grooming, but yeah makes sense

There are sick people out there who would use this as a way to justify the real thing and that's beyond disgusting. And everyone who goes like 'it's just a drawing' and 'it's not real, let people enjoy their fantasy' by doing this are actively encouraging the problem.

I feel like there are some case where people literally just use it as a fantasy/fetish and don't act on it. But I also think that there are enough people who do use it to hurt or justify hurting a real person, for this issue to be taken a bit more seriously.

Anything can be potentially harmful. I have the mindset fiction is fiction unless an unstable person changes the playing field. The argument of whether or not this will affect people reminds me of the 90s/00s argument on violent video games such as CoD and Mortal Kombat. The vast majority of people do not try to kill people like in those video games. They might use it as a stress relief and then there's who would actually take such games into practice. But trying to imply an entire genre of media will convince people to act on perceived impulses for the most part isn't fully sound. Anything can be used as a weapon, anything can be used as a harmful tool. It depends on how it is used. I could make a grandiose and flawed argument that you should not ever use guns because the vast amount of people accidentally killing/shooting themselves. That guns are harmful carte blanche. Same goes for adult media that are controversial. Can people use it and eventually harm someone in real life? Yes they could. There's no denying that but if by some chance this stuff can help people and prevent kids from actually being harmed irl because it is a substitute then I rather that outcome. Like it was mentioned in ThePrincesTale's article. The biggest concern is how prosocial and how much of an impulse control a pedophile has so there's more to it then just "if you're a pedophile you will immediately do something harmful because of the imagery" Not to mention because of the stigma behind pedophilia they don't have as many resources/non-biased therapists to assist them. Which given the nature, I am not surprised...Point is assuming this imagery does more harm then good is a slippery slope. An understandable slippery slope but a slippery slope nonetheless.

^ Pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well.

''Anything can be potentially harmful. I have the mindset fiction is fiction unless an unstable person changes the playing field.''

^ This alone summing them up perfectly !!!!

I can agree with that. I do think that pretty much anything can be harmful if utilized the wrong way. Sort of like the age old debate that 'metal music is Santanic' and leads to violence. It can for some people but not for everyone. It's also like loving evil characters; just because you enjoy a good fictional murder doesn't mean that you condone it IRL.
The only reason that my stance against loli is radically different than my other opinions regarding the impact of music and fiction (mostly I think that anything should go in fiction) is because this one involves kids and I believe the the safety of kids should be put ahead of 'let me just enjoy xyz thing, it isn't real.'

As for the pedophilia stigma I posted my thoughts on this here; link

^the link is broken.

I just forgot to take out the s. Should work now.

@zanhar1 I read the link you made fair points. I just don't think using the argument that this sort of media will generally/most likely be a negative. It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like claiming if you like bdsm you will torture someone just because people think you have no self control. The vast majority of people aren't pedophiles. It's a rare disorder. And most people who enjoy loli/shota are likely not pedophiles. You need to be an offending pedophile or one in danger or becoming one and you must be mentally unstable and unable to control your urges.

link

There's two people whom researched the topic and they feel the way society is treating non offending pedophiles is counter productive.

"Summing up a bunch of research, Cantor and Mcphail write that “non-offending pedophiles are less likely to view sexual activity with children as acceptable, may be more able to manage their responses to sexual stimuli, and may believe they are better able to control their sexual arousal and behavior than pedophilic individuals who do act on their sexual interests.” "

I completely understand that in many extreme scenarios regarding this topic. You want to be safe above all else. I just don't believe consuming said material is as black and white as many have claimed. We don't know for a fact how many people who watch loli/shota are offending pedophiles versus people satisfying a fictional fetish versus non offending pedophiles. I theorize that might be one of the reasons why generally in the states judges can't book you just for having loli/shota. In one case I found online (Assuming this hearsay was true)

"Its actually not illegal. My cousin was charged (not convicted) of distribution of child pornography in the Army. He was first charged under Court Marshal and then when they couldn't get a conviction there, both the State he was charged in and the Federal Courts tried to string him up. All 3 failed. But in one of their points, the Prosecutors in all 3 trials attempted to not only use animated images as evidence of knowledge of the crime, but also as evidence of being child pornography. Neither worked because (and this is how he said his attorney explained it to him) "A depiction of a non existent child does not constitute as child pornography, the same as killing someone in a game does not constitute as murder. They are imaginary and fantasy and therefore do not affect real life events." And I have seen cases where people have been convicted for child pornography, who also possessed animated images of children, however in none of those cases were the individuals convicted because of the animated images. If you read the record of trial for those kinds of cases you will see prosecutors attempt to use them as evidence to the crime but in none have I seen a conviction come as a result of these images. And this was the case for convictions in multiple states. I used the Lexus Nexus for this research."

"Yeah. The biggest issue with cases regarding "Lolicon" is that yes, you could be charged under "obscenity" laws. However, the State and Federal Government would never risk trying to convict you for just having cartoon depictions of children. You always see in the google search or on some article something like "Man charged for Cartoon Child Images!" But if you read the articles they also found real child images. Same thing with the child-like dolls. The reason just going after you for images depicting imaginary children or for having a child doll is that if the defendant is smart he will shut up and lawyer up. And with that comes the "ignorance" defense that most lawyers will push. This is risky for a prosecutor because they have to prove the individual knew that the images or the doll depicts a child. Just saying "she has a flat chest" or "no pubic hair" or "she is small" is not a suitable argument because there are plenty of small, flatchested, and hairless girls that are 18+ (Look up Kitty Yung) so the defense could say "Well I thought they were all legal age, I just like those certain features in a girl, the age has nothing to do with it.". Prosecutors build their careers on convictions and they are not very likely to risk staining their reputation by going after cases where it's all imaginary content and no real child porn. And even with real CP they are risky if the girls look like they could pass for a late blooming adult. All the defense has to do is plead ignorance and that's the prosecutors worst nightmare."

Due to the fact that obscenity in the USA is determined by a sitting judge or jury in reference to local standards and definitions on a state-by-state, case-by-case basis, the legality of drawn or fictitious pornography depicting minors is left in a 'gray area', much like other forms of alternative pornography. Some states pay less mind to the contents of such materials and determine obscenity based on time and place an offense may occur, while others may have strict, well-defined standards for what a community may be allowed to find appropriate. Others only may have vague laws or definitions which are only used to allow the government to prosecute recidivist offenders on both a federal and state level. Granted every nation has their laws but because of how much of a gray area it is but that is my point in general. It is a gray area in many people's eyes.

link

Hell people even brought the issue to the UN and they declined it deeming it more worthwhile to go after people who are actively harming kids.

As theprincestale and I have pointed out there are different psychological schools of thought on this and theprincestale's article likely reflects the majority view. That being said I don't think we should ostracize non offending pedophiles. They need help to greatly reduce the risk that they will cave into their urges and there are also some like the one in theprincestale's article who doesn't want to rape anyone be it man.woman or child according to their words so they are less likely to do anything (if we take the person who was interviewed at their word. There's aren't enough resources for them and because of the harm society has suffered at the hands of offending ones. Many people are quick to punish and it's a completely fair reaction.

( Hell it's suspected that when I was like 10 or so someone tried to abduct me. Someone rolled up in a vehicle attempting to ask me questions and likely because my mom came out very soon they sped off. So I am under no disillusion about how dangerous offending pedophiles are. Hell in my home state Florida. Adam Walsh was killed and my mom was old enough to know that story and she has always warned me about pedophiles in general. That story shocked the area and made people paranoid in general according to older family members so I grew up constantly being weary about them)

I am just saying people who argue that loli/shota is harmful carte blanche assumes there's more negative incidents that arise from it than not. We don't know the statistics. And even if we had some idea. To find data on everyone who consume this material worldwide would be a daunting task. For all we know it could be the opposite extreme and only a few are linked to everyone's perceived viewpoints of what the material is used for. And based on several arguments in history such as the aforementioned CoD/Mortal Kombat/violent video games debate it is a slippery slope. And many conservative politicians and figures constantly spearhead that violent video games cause kids to be shooters. Is it possible yes but much of the research implies they will likely be more aggressive but not necessarily commit the most extreme action like shoot up a school. Like with offending pedophiles, the common denominators are, they must be mentally unstable and not really prosocial.

Also I must point out I am not arguing against you zan fully or really anyone here. I am more arguing against the preconceived notion about this type of material.

link

^You gotta remove the s after http or it won't link and give errors for fanpop

link

I don't give a flying fuck about loli or shota content. It's not my thing but I don't care if it's someone else's thing.

Sorry, the "it could be used as grooming material!" excuse is dumb. You're taking full responsibility away from the abuser when you partially blame art, and that's fucked up. It's the equivalent of partially blaming a woman's choice of clothing for her rape. Anything can be used as grooming material; you don't get to pick and choose which potential materials are okay and which aren't okay. Either all of it's allowed, or none of it's allowed. (And of course if nothing is allowed then literally nothing would be able to exist.)

Anime characters don't look enough like real people for attraction towards them to inherently mean anything. I agree with ThePrincesTale that letting a pedophile indulge in this content actual does the opposite of helping them, however the assumption that seems to be going on this poll is that if someone likes loli/shota, that means they're a pedophile, and that is FAR from the truth. I've come across so many lolicons/shotacons on twitter that hate MAPs that it's not even funny.

Additionally, a lot of abuse survivors create/consume nsfw content of fictional minors because they're trying to work out their own sexual abuse as a child. That is called trauma art, and it is not inherently harmful. It is a valid coping mechanism that is encouraged by licensed psychiatrists/psychologists/therapists and is helpful to some survivors. You are throwing those survivors under the bus by assuming they're pedophiles, and that's not okay. Survivors are being accused of enjoying their abuse or having the validity of their abuse being questioned day in and day out in fandom discourse because of this toxic mentality. By implying that anyone who likes this content is a pedophile, you are triggering those survivors and validating the abusers in fandom who think it's okay to harass creators/consumers of this content based on fiction alone. Stop.

No, someone is not automatically "retraumatizing" themselves by creating/consuming trauma art. I've seen so many dumbasses speak over mental health professionals who actually know what they're talking about in fandom drama and I hate it so fucking much.

Yes, trauma art is allowed to exist online as long as there are content warnings and it's in an adult space. Some survivors find catharsis through sharing their works, and others feel less alone when they come across another's art.

Also, there are many survivors who get extremely offended when they see other people compare the horror they went through to lines on paper.

If we were talking exclusively about live action series, I would understand the concern because a real child actor could end up being sexualized, either blatantly or by creating nsfw fanart in their likeness. But cartoons? Yeah, nah.

Sorry to get so heated, but I am very passionate about this subject.

I agree with the grooming hands down. It's similar to my argument.

You're taking full responsibility away from the abuser when you partially blame art

I feel like this is extremely dismissive tbh. I talked to someone who mentioned that loli and shota was used to groom them. Like this person and several others have mentioned that they were shown NSFW loli stuff as a means to normalize it. That loli was used to convince them (minors at the time) that it was okay let an adult because 'look at this character/actor'.

I do agree that trauma art is fair. I use dark humor and dark fics to cope with my own traumas. I also agree that we shouldn't blame NSFW loli art for misdeeds. It isn't the art's fault. What I do think is that it can be used as a tool or an instrument in the same way that an everyday object can be used to murder someone. I think that loli art can be used as a manipulation tactic to ease a minor into accepting the real thing as normal and safe.

And to call it 'dumb' is just really dismissive and rather harsh.

Also, there are many survivors who get extremely offended when they see other people compare the horror they went through to lines on paper.
Also fair but at the same time. No one experiences trauma the same. It's just as unfair to write off people who are (for lack of a better term) triggered by loli as it is to write people off who use it to cope. Everyone deals with shit different. Also, though I don't really care for the word 'trigger', I do believe that seeing loli can trigger flashback in victims.
I'm not going to police what other people view but the fact that NSFW art of minors can be found on the homepage of Deviant art is an issue because that flashes it in the faces of people who aren't searching for it nor expecting to see it.
People, at the end of the day, can do what they want with fictional characters, but at least have the decency to do it in a designated place and in an appropriate setting/time.

"I talked to someone who mentioned that loli and shota was used to groom them."

Art is never the perpetrator, though. I know I sounded harsh, but that's because I've seen so many abuse survivors be triggered because "it can be used as grooming material! You don't care about other survivors, you're probably not a survivor yourself you pedo!1" and I am SO done.

NSFW content should never be shown to minors. As I said before with trauma art, as long as it has content warnings and is in an adult space it's allowed to exist. If someone pulls that art out of the adult space to show to a minor that is the fault of the abuser, NOT the artist.

"It's just as unfair to write off people who are (for lack of a better term) triggered by loli as it is to write people off who use it to cope."

Content warnings are very important. They can be used so that people who are triggered by lolisho can easily avoid content. (Also you can use the word trigger! Some survivors are indeed triggered by underage content, and that's valid, too!)

"the fact that NSFW art of minors can be found on the homepage of Deviant art is an issue because that flashes it in the faces of people who aren't searching for it nor expecting to see it."

"but at least have the decency to do it in a designated place and in an appropriate setting/time."

Exactly! We're actually on the same page with this. I think you just misunderstood. Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear. I am against content showing up like this on a website's homepage, and it IS a problem! I believe it should be tagged properly so it's never available for just anyone to see. If a website doesn't allow proper tagging so that potentially triggering content can be avoided, then I believe the art should be posted on a different site. There also needs to be more education for proper content warnings and tags in fandom so that creators know how and why they need to do this.

@zan Anything can be used to groom people. It's not about being dismissive. It's just blaming the wrong thing. It's not about whether people have an issue with questionable material but the fact all material can all be used as grooming. It's sucks that happened to that individual but that mindset is no different than someone I talked with briefly on fanpop who claimed all bdsm was horrible and anyone that participated in it was sick and twisted because they were raped. They had a negative viewpoint because what happened to them. They ended up blaming the wrong thing. It's the person that raped them not the subject. I will generally (Maybe there are some exceptions. I can't think of any right now though) never blame the subject for an act of someone else. Factually it really doesn't make sense. I am not trying to be dismissive nor am I trying to demean but trauma does cause biases and I have met my share of people affected by biases. Trauma or otherwise.

Extreme religious sects "groom" people. An extreme version of Christianity could be grooming people but that does not mean the subject is inherently bad. But I agree with you and Arctic it should be in a certain place way from people could be triggered by that material.

Or methods in which you can blacklist. Like boorus for an example.

Also wanted to point out something that may not have been clear in my first comment: when I use "you" I'm not talking about any user specifically. Re-reading the comment I realized I may have come across as maliciously attacking zan throughout the whole thing. That was not my intent! I addressed zan's comment about grooming and then used "you" afterwards to address any potential reader who wrongly assumed "lolisho = pedophilia", but in hindsight I didn't word that very well. Sorry about that!

It's alright, I didn't see it as a personal attack. I've just been busy with my new job. I've been scheduled on the night shift lately (so like 10 to 3AM) so I've been functioning on like a half a braincell and haven't had the physical or mental energy to reply.
Also I've been in a shitty mood and I try not to debate when I'm in a mood like this. I just wanted to drop by and say that you didn't do anything wrong and that I'm not ignoring these comments. I just haven't had the time or mental state to reply right.

Art is never the perpetrator, though. I can agree with this. I guess its kind of like the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' thing. And (as blind said) I guess anything can be used as a grooming tool. If not loli/shota they'd find something else. I suppose that my disproval might be on a more personal level.
I also get where you're coming from when talking about how you've seen so much accusatory bs when it comes to that statment. Like people who will paint you as some kind of criminal for not hating loli/shota. Frankly I think that those people are doing their side a disservice. If you want to be taken seriously you probably shouldn't call the person you're talking with a pedophile, it just makes them want to end the discussion.

NSFW content should never be shown to minors. As I said before with trauma art, as long as it has content warnings and is in an adult space it's allowed to exist. If someone pulls that art out of the adult space to show to a minor that is the fault of the abuser, NOT the artist. This I can also agree with. I am a trauma art kind of person myself (I've already made several dead brother jokes...). And I do agree that it isn't the artist's fault but the person who shows it to a minor's fault. The whole death of the author thing. Once the content is out there it's partly out of the author/artist's hands. If they keep it in a designated spot, the artist did what they could.
But this is where I feel the tricky part comes in. This is why I think that this kind of art can be dangerous; because no matter what the artist does (even if they put all of the warnings on their pic and keep it in an adult only area), literally anyone can take it and put it on sites with minors and that's not okay. But it's also out of the artist's hands. I think that if this happens (and they catch it) they have a responsibility to tell the person who shared their work on a site with minors to not do that (sort of like how artists will tell people not to repost their work without credit and stuff).

Content warnings are very important. They can be used so that people who are triggered by lolisho can easily avoid content. (Also you can use the word trigger! Some survivors are indeed triggered by underage content, and that's valid, too!) Kay so we're on the same page here. Yeah, I feel weird about using the word triggered because so many people look at you funny now because of that sjw vs anti-sjw bs. Even if it is a valid term.

Exactly! We're actually on the same page with this. I think you just misunderstood. Yeah I think that we are. I feel like we're kind of on the same page about most things (with a few disagreements) it's just a matter of wording lol. And it's alright on the not making things clear enough. I think that some of my points weren't either. I guess that's what discussion is for lol. I am against content showing up like this on a website's homepage, and it IS a problem! I believe it should be tagged properly so it's never available for just anyone to see. Exactly, and that's a problem with DA having pisspoor managing more than it is the artist's fault--like I've seen other fetishes show up on the first page and clicked out of curiosity (ready to ask the artist why their work is on the homepage and uncesnored) and they too don't know why it got there and wish that it wouldn't have. But a lot of the times these artists don't have the NSFW content warnings on, that's where I take issue; normally I don't mind but sometimes I am browsing the site AT WORK on my break!!!! And if that shit just shows up on the front page...yikes. There also needs to be more education for proper content warnings and tags in fandom so that creators know how and why they need to do this. agree with this too.

Oh damn, night shifts suck. Good luck with that dude! Prioritizing mental health is good. Honestly I just respond to people and let my mental health deteriorate in the process lmao.

"Frankly I think that those people are doing their side a disservice. If you want to be taken seriously you probably shouldn't call the person you're talking with a pedophile, it just makes them want to end the discussion."

Dude this is the main problem on tumblr and twitter dot hell. People (especially teens new to fandom who just like to parrot old conservative rhetoric previously used against the LGBT+ community - oh the irony!) aren't willing to have an actual discussion. They honestly believe that everyone that doesn't hate lolisho is automatically a predator and/or pedophile; it's why I responded so aggressively in my first comment. I am just... done with everything about this discourse. Anyone who spreads that implication raises my hackles now and I have zero patience with them.

The reason why I, personally, am so vehement against using "it could be used as potential grooming material" as an argument is because a groomer will switch to something else if the material they're using isn't working. The actual material used to groom literally doesn't matter. Innocent materials CAN and ARE used by groomers as well, yet no one wants to ban those, it's only the material that makes people personally uncomfortable that gets thrown under the bus. To me it can come across as performative - people caring more about their own comfort levels than actually getting to the source of the problem (kids not being taught red flags for potential predators), and as a result abusers aren't being seen as entirely responsible for their actions. "If the woman was wearing less revealing clothing, the abuser wouldn't have done anything!" and "If this content didn't exist, the abuser wouldn't have done anything!" are the same argument, and it boggles my mind that the supposedly more "progressive" side of fandom doesn't see that. It's just so illogical to me. "ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn!1" has been a manipulation tactic for people to get rid of things they don't like, even if the thing hasn't been proven to be inherently harmful, since day one.

"literally anyone can take it and put it on sites with minors and that's not okay."

I agree that this isn't okay. That's why I believe that any site that allows minors either shouldn't allow nsfw content or have an adults-only space somewhere on the site (kind of like what fanexus says they're going to do). Pixiv I feel is a good example of allowing complete separation of sfw and nsfw content because users can choose whether they want to be able to view explicit/guro content. I don't know if the age of the user plays into their choices because I created an account looong after I turned 18, but it'd definitely be more difficult for someone to try to groom someone specifically with nsfw content on that site if the potential victim already has the content blocked. Twitter, on the other hand, is sort of a free-for-all. Of course there are nsfw accounts that block minors, but unless an account is locked anyone can technically view it, which I find unfair because how are people going to discover new creators they like if the accounts are always locked? I'm really just hoping fanexus lives up to the hype so we don't have to deal with this anymore.

"I feel weird about using the word triggered because so many people look at you funny now because of that sjw vs anti-sjw bs"

Dude, I know. The one good thing about tumblr and twitter is that no one bats an eye when you use trigger warnings. On the other hand, it's also tumblr and twitter's fault that people are looked at funny for using trigger warnings because far too many people on those sites seem to think "trigger" and "discomfort" are synonymous with each other. Regardless, I still frequently use the word in its correct definition because I think it's an important topic in discussions.

"sometimes I am browsing the site AT WORK on my break!!!! And if that shit just shows up on the front page...yikes"

Yikes indeed. Tbh I'm not very familiar with DeviantArt because most of the art I like comes from pixiv, tumblr, or twitter, but now I'm glad I never got invested in DA. That sounds awful. Are there any other art sites you would prefer to use instead?

In summary, my stance for a long time has been: lolisho isn't inherently harmful (when it's in it's appropriate space) and there is no concrete proof that people who do like it are automatically pedophiles and potential predators. I side-eye anyone who claims the contrary. The only time I think the argument holds weight is when a live-action series is being discussed, like when Taylor Lautner was being openly lusted after by a bunch of middle-aged women even when he was still underage, or people making nsfw content of the child actors from It. Liking a young character and sharing nsfw fantasies of the live action counterpart are two very different things, and I believe being attracted to those actors could be considered proof of pedophilia/ephebophilia.

Also, because I love going off tangent:

The problem, though, is that the word "pedophilia" is casually tossed around in fandom now so that a lot of people, me especially, are experiencing serious alarm fatigue over the word, and I worry for fandoms in the future. Some of the supposed "safe adults" in fandom (and some minors as well) deliberately expose minors/their peers to nsfw and problematic content under the guise of showing them the "bad" stuff, and consequently real child sexual exploitation material has been spread multiple times this year. Kids are being conditioned to associate the phrase "cp" with fanart, and begging to see the "gross cp" in call-outs has been normalized. It's so fucked up. They don't understand that spreading actual exploitation material is wrong because, hey, they spread the bad loli/shota art around in their artist call-out and that was okay, spreading real csem in a call-out should be fine because it's the same as lolisho, right??

God, it makes me so angry that these people are considered the "moral" side of fandom. I've seen people say that lolisho is bad because it normalizes people to the real thing, yet time and time again it's the people equating fiction with reality that think spreading real csem is okay. The people who actually like lolisho? They're livid that real csem is being spread. The "lolisho is bad!" crowd are usually the immoral ones in my eyes.