• I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    One thing I have to ask for those that say pedos should seek psychological/psychiatric treatment: do you even know a professional that won’t immediately call the cops if you say “i have sexual desires for kids”?

    I wholly agree that this is something that should receive some form of treatment, but first the ones afflicted would have to know that they won’t be judged, labeled and exposed when they do so.

    • RazorsLedge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are attracted to whoever they’re attracted to. Saying someone should get psychiatric treatment for the sexual preferences in their own head sounds misguided, similar to “pray the gay away”

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the US, they will call the cops if they know you did something illegal, so it does require some form of secrecy from the patient.

  • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My god there are way too many comments in here trying to normalize pedophilia. Disgusting. Pathetic.

    These are people that need serious psychiatric care, not acceptance or to be included in the LGBTQ+ community. There is absolutely nothing to compare between them and any group within the LGBTQ+ community. Nothing.

    Combatting CP is a hard enough task for the poor bastards that have to do it. There does not need to be AI produced images in the mix.

    Lemmy, do better.

    • dsemy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think pedophiles should be treated with compassion, as being a pedophile doesn’t make someone a sexual predator.

      IMO the stigma against pedophiles worsens their mental state and could push them to become sexual predators. This is just a guess though.

      However, I do think “treatment” of pedophilia with generated CP should only be tried after conducting proper research into the actual effectiveness of it (maybe with general sex offenders and regular porn). In the end I think the top priority should be to minimize the amount of pedophiles who are also predators.

      • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The stigma against racism and sexism I guess a are also making people want to hurt these groups?

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sex offenders aren’t allowed to watch porn because the evidence suggests it doesn’t treat the behavior, but encoureges it.

        • Forbo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Having a hard time finding the evidence you mention, got a citation? First few articles I saw were actually advising against blanket pornography bans.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For example, Vega and Malamuth (2007) explored the role of pornography in the context of risk factors associated with sexual aggression within a group of male university students. They found that excessive pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression.

            This review was unable to demonstrate that there was not a relationship between early exposure to pornography and sexual offending. It also consistently appears that men who sexually offend report less exposure to pornography and that exposure to pornography does not result in more harm being caused to the victim. The review suggests that there is not a consistent relationship between exposure to pornography and offending shortly after exposure.

            So a recent meta analysis has not found anything conclusive one way or the other. Operant conditioning does suggest a correlation (watching naked children while masturbating reinforces the neural pathways that link sexual arousal to kids).

            I did time for a drug offense and met a lot of sexual offenders. In my state, they’re not allowed to watch porn if they’re on parole.

            Anyway, the jury is out on if there is enough correlation between the two. But there’s definitely not evidence that I could find that letting pedophiles masterbate to pictures of children is helpful, as you suggest. Rather those images are simulated or not.

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178918302404

            • Forbo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I didn’t suggest shit, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks for the citations though.

              • treefrog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                However, I do think “treatment” of pedophilia with generated CP should only be tried after conducting proper research into the actual effectiveness of it (maybe with general sex offenders and regular porn).

                Okay. Well this research has been tried with general sex offenders and it’s inconclusive rather it’s helpful or harmful.

                Sorry for reading your post suggestion that we try treating pedophiles with AI generated CP as a suggestion that CP would be helpful for pedophiles.

    • captain_spork@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not that I think they should be included in LGBTQ+ but as someone who is bisexual I feel they’re not as far from us as you seemingly believe. Why wouldn’t we compare them? Both are sexual attractions that deviate from the norm. A pedophile didn’t choose to be a pedophile anymore than I chose to be bi.

      Growing up in a conservative household and town was a miserable experience for me. I hated myself, didn’t want to accept it, and felt utterly alone. Now think about how much worse it must be to realize you’re attracted to children. You have zero allies, you have zero people you can talk to, and a lot of people hate you merely for existing and/or want you dead. From where I stand their experience echoes my experience being LBGTQ+ quite heavily. Except over my lifetime LBGTQ+ acceptance grew quite rapidly and my husband was the light at the end of the tunnel. But pedophiles will never get that, probably ever. I feel nothing but sympathy for their situation.

      And what “serious psychiatric care” do you even think there is for it? Unless you also believe in gay conversion camps, we have nothing. We don’t even really know how sexuality actually works in the brain, we definitely aren’t anywhere close to being able to treat it.

      • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why wouldn’t we compare them?

        Really? What part of your sexuality, or mine, involves raping children? Nothing, right? One step back, what part of you being bisexual or my being trans involves harming anyone? That’s right, nothing.

        I don’t have the answer of how to deal with those that are attracted to children. But to suggest psychiatric care for those who have serious pathology is akin to gay conversion camps is gross.

        This is not some philosophical debate. Stop playing into the hands of bigots who are actively trying to paint LGBTQ+ folks, especially trans people at the moment, as “groomers” and “pedos”.

        We are not associated or comparable with pedophiles in any way, shape or form—full stop.

        • Critical_Insight@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Most people in jail for abusing children are not pedophiles, but normal rapists and kids unfortunelately just happen to be easy targets. Even most pedophiles have morals. They know what they like is wrong and they wouldn’t want to hurt anyone. Just like most men aren’t rapists despite being turned on by women.

          Just imagine being born as someone with these urges. What a shitty fucking hand you’ve been dealt and as if that’s not bad enough, people want to murder you just for coming out and asking for help.

        • hikaru755@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tf are you talking about, unless being gay involves raping men, being pedo also doesn’t involve raping children. Even as a cishet non-pedo you will often encounter situations where acting on some attraction you feel would be anywhere from morally questionable to straight up illegal, and most of us manage to deal with that just fine. Of course that’s going to be tougher for someone whose entire experience consists of that, rather than just part of it, but nothing about being pedo forces you to become a child-raping piece of shit.

          Of course psychiatric care is important, but the point the other commenter was making is that it’s currently impossible to change anyone’s attraction, so it’s not a pathology that can be “cured” in this way. Any psychiatric care currently has to be aimed at helping people deal with being pedo without acting on it and also not developing any other psychological afflictions because of suppressing their attraction. Trying to “cure” the attraction itself would indeed be akin to gay conversion therapy: there’s no scientific evidence it works, and it’s going to do more harm than good.

          • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If people stopped blurring consent lines that’d be great. Either you consent or you don’t. Fantasizing about rape legitimized incel’s attitude that women want to be raped. Nobody who is kentwlly healthy fantasizes about it. Therapy, not cnc.

      • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Excuse me what? I’m pansexual and fucking what? I’m nothing like a kiddy diddler. I don’t revel in the agony inflicted onto a child. These people get off on violence and destroying people. These victims are never the same again. That’s why parents catching someone doing this to a child will kill the perpetrator and nobody would fault them. Pedos are criminally insane if anything.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m very conflicted on this one.

    Child porn one of those things that won’t go away if you prohibit it, like alcohol. It’ll just go underground and cause harm to real children.

    AI child pornography images, as disturbing as they might be, would serve a “need”, if you will, while not actually harming children. Since child pornography doesn’t appear to be one of those “try it and you’ll get addicted” things, I’m genuinely wondering if this would actually reduce the harm caused to real children. If so, I think it should be legal.

    • clausetrophobic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Normalisation in culture has effects on how people behave in the real world. Look at Japan’s sexualization of women and minors, and how they have huge problems with sexual assault. It’s not about whether or not real children are getting hurt, it’s about whether it’s morally right or wrong. And as a society, we’ve decided that CP is very wrong as a moral concept.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s the thing though, being too paranoid about normalization also makes the problem worse, because the truth is that these are people with severe mental problems, who in all likelihood want to seek professional help in most cases.

        The problem is the subject is SO taboo that even a lot of mental health professionals will chase them off like rabid animals when the solution is developing an understanding that can lead to a clinical treatment plan for these cases.

        Doing that will also help the CSAM problem too since getting people out of the alleyways and into professional help will shrink the market significantly, both immediately and overtime, reducing the amount of content that gets made, and as a result, the amount of children victimized to make that content.

        The key factor remains, we have to stop treating these people like inhuman monsters that deserve death and far worse whenever they’re found. They’re sick in the head souls who need robust mental health care and thought management strategies.

        • JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          None of that is an argument for normalisation via legalisation. Offenders and potential offenders should feel safe to seek help. Legalising AI-generated CSAM just makes it much less likely that they’ll see the need to seek help. In much the same way that rapists assume all men are rapists, because most men don’t make it clear that they’re not.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry, should I make clear to every bank that I’m not a bank robber? Do I seriously have to tell every woman that I am not a rapist? That is a really bad argument. The vast VAST majority of men are not rapists, saying that it’s men’s fault because they don’t apologize or clarify that they’re not rapists is just… crazy

            • JoBo@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Where did you get any of that from? Why does any of what I said somehow imply telling women anything at all?

              Get a fucking grip.

    • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I heard an anonymous interview with someone who was sickened by their own attraction to children. Hearing that person speak changed my perspective. This person had already decided never to marry or have kids and chose a career to that same end, low likelihood that kids would be around. Clearly, since the alternative was giving up on love and family forever, the attraction wasn’t a choice. Child porn that wasn’t made with children, comics I guess, was used to fantasize to prevent carrying through on those desires in real life.

      I don’t get it, why anyone would be attracted to kids. It’s gross and hurtful and stupid. If people suffering from this problem have an outlet, though, maybe fewer kids will be hurt.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are many things still unclear about whether or not this will increase harm.

      We don’t know how these images effect people and their behaviour. Many techbros online treat it like it’s a fact that media does not influence behaviour and thought processes, but if you look at the research this isn’t clear cut at all. And some research was able to show that specific media indeed does influence people.

      Additionally, something rarely talked about, these images, stories and videos can be used to groom children and teenagers. Either to become victims and/or to become consumers themselves. This was a thing in the past and I bet it is still happening with Manga depicting Loli Hentai. Making these images legal will give groomers even better tool.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Loli porn can turn people into pedophiles then I think humanity is having bigger issues

      • Skwerls@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but not in the way I think you’re implying, it is not trained on csam images. It can put the pieces together to varying degrees of success. If you ask for a Martian hedgehog in a tuxedo riding a motorcycle, it can create something looking like that without being trained on exactly that thing.

        • LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Martian hedgehog in a tuxedo riding a motorcycle

          Just to prove your point I fed that into an AI (dreamshaper 8). no other prompts or anything, and this was the first image it generated.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can certainly argue that AI-generated CSAM does less harm but you can’t argue from that to legalising it because it still does a bucketload of harm. Consumers of CSAM are very likely to harm real children and normalising CSAM makes that much more likely.

      This argument is a non-starter and people really need to stop pushing it.

      • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Consumers of CSAM are very likely to harm real children and normalising CSAM makes that much more likely.

        If any of that was objectively true, then yeah, I agree. Problem is, it looks like you just pulled that out of your ass.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re literally claiming a bunch of things as facts. Any spur ea to back that up?

  • papertowels@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So this does bring up an interesting point that I haven’t thought about - is it the depiction that matters, or is it the actual potential for victims that matters?

    Consider the Catholic schoolgirl trope - if someone of legal age is depicted as being much younger, should that be treated in the same way as this case? This case is arguing that the depiction is what matters, instead of who is actually harmed.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      In America at least, people often confuse child pornography laws with obscenity laws, and they do end up missing the point. Obscenity laws are a violation of free speech, but that’s not what a CSAM ban is about. It’s about criminalizing the abuse of children as thoroughly as possible. Being in porn requires consent, and children can’t consent, so even the distribution or basic retention of this content violates a child’s rights.

      Which is why the courts have thrown out lolicon bans on First Amendment grounds every time it’s attempted. Simulated CSAM lacks a child whose rights could be violated, and generally meets all the the definitions of art, which would be protected expression no matter how offensive.

      It’s a sensitive subject that most people don’t see nuance in. It’s hard to admit that pedophilia isn’t a criminal act by itself, but only when an actual child is made a victim, or a conspiracy to victimize children is uncovered.

      With that said, we don’t have much of a description of the South Korean man’s offenses, and South Korea iirc has similar laws to the US on this matter. It is very possible that he was modifying real pictures of children with infill or training models using pictures of a real child to generate fake porn of a real child. This would introduce a real child as victim, so it’s my theory on what this guy was doing. Probably on a public image generator service that flagged his uploads.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How I see it: creating fake child porn makes it harder for authorities to find the real ones.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a good point. On the flip side, I remember there was a big deal about trying to flood the rhino horn market with fakes a few years ago. I can’t find anything on how that went, but I wonder if it could have that effect as well.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Considering every other aspect of this is being argued in this thread to exhaustion, I just want to say it’s wild they caught him since it says he didn’t distribute it.

      • Skwerls@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah he probably wasn’t generating locally. Seems like that would be pretty hard to detect if you don’t distrubute.

  • Surreal@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the man did not distribute the pictures, how did the government find out? Did a cloud service rat him out? Or spyware?

    • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He was found extorting little girls with nude pics he generated of them.

      Edit: So I guess he just generated them. In that case, how’d they become public? I guess this is the problem if you don’t read the article.

    • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t the point that Noone was harmed and that you shouldn’t get in prison for stuff that harmed nobody. I mean ew its disgusting but not worth jailing someone for it…

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You clearly have chosen not to understand the assignments people are making in this thread. Either that or you’re choosing to misrepresent them. Literally nobody is supporting sexual assault of children or anyone else. But hey, don’t let that stop you from gloating about how morally superior you are.

    • Forbo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can’t have any nuanced discussion here! Glad to see people such as yourself engaging in reductionism and shutting down thinking, because all interactions online have to be boiled down to five words TL;DR pithy sound bites.

      Leave the shit on Twitter, we can do better here.

      • datavoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually typed out a more lengthy response to someone here already, read more responses/viewed the vote counts, and then wrote this top level comment pointing out how backwards this community’s views are. No one is directly supporting assaulting children, but as I wrote elsewhere: “why do we value the sexual gratification of pedos higher than the potential safety of children?”

        • MikuNPC@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Who the heck is proposing we value that? Everyone is saying we value the safety of real children which may entail keeping artificial CP legal.

          Also it’s a victimless crime so punishments dealt out are criticized heavily, and for good reason.