You Will Simply Never, Ever Convince Me That People Who Create Fiction Instead Of Creating Real Harm

You will simply never, ever convince me that people who create fiction instead of creating real harm are evil and should feel shame.

Never.

I feel like you're overcomplicating things just to feel better about yourself, frankly. CP is legally defined (and just, like, generally considered) as pornographic material depicting minors. It doesn't specify "real" minors or disqualify fictional/drawn material definitionally. A drawn image of a child is still a depiction of a minor, and pornographic material involving minors is still a depiction of a child even if it's fictional. You can consider them morally inequivalent all you want, I'm not here to argue morals with you and you can think one is worse than the other and I won't debate it, but "drawn CP doesn't exist" is a bad take because it's still porn depicting children. It's still porn involving children. It's still PORN INVOLVING CHILDREN. I truly don't understand how the children not being technically real makes this definitionally any different, or makes it "not child porn" by definition

Multiple federal and professional services who specialise in identifying actual CP and preventing it and protecting their victims: Fictional content is not legally CP and cannot be prosecuted as such please stop wasting our resources intended for real victims. You:

Drawn cp not being classed as csem by the FBI doesn't mean it's okay, you know that right? You understand that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's immune to criticism? Do you understand that "it's allowed by the FBI actually!!" is a very weak and bad response to someone condemning something?

"Drawn CP."

Again. Not actually CP.

Its. Fictional.

By definition. It does not involve any real children. That's the distinction I'm making. Because its an important one, and one that people who share your mindset love to ignore in regards to vehement defence of fictional characters who neither exist nor need defending. Because they're not real.

By all means. Criticize or condemn what you like. If your moral stance is that you can't separate fictional creations from real life actions and intent, then that's your stance. If its equitable to you, that's your opinion.

Where it has to stop is when you begin trying to treat those fictional characters with the same victim consideration as real people and labelling the person who created the content as a rapist/murderer/pedophile/ect.

People like you love to condemn fictional content on the basis that it serves as an alternate, direct reflection of reality, when the simple fact is that it isn't.

OP's post was quite literally: "If you're using the subject of your trauma to create fiction that allows you to heal or exist in the least harmful way, you should feel ashamed and guilty."

My response was. Why?

Genuinely. I would love to know what is so abhorrent about people creating victimless, fictional content because it benefits them.

I, personally, would prefer someone writes 100,000 pieces of fiction over harming a real life child.

I, personally, would prefer someone writes 100,000 pieces of fiction over going out and trying to find an outlet in unsafe sex and making themselves vulnerable.

I, personally, would rather people enjoy or experience dangerous, wild, weird, unsafe, unethical kinks and activities fictionally over doing it in real life and winding up hurt or hurting someone else.

I, personally, would never see someone processing, understanding or finding outlet from their trauma through fiction and demand they scuttle off into some dark corner and hate themselves for it.

I implore you to talk to some actual real life therapists who specialise in trauma. Not just your generic therapist. An actual trauma specialist. Creating fictional content, be it art, literature, music, ect, is a very viable, proven tool for both living with something and moving on from it.

People do not owe you constant justifications of their media consumption.

People do not owe you constant disclaimers about their media consumption.

People do not owe you constant defence of their media consumption.

People do not owe you constant moral flag signalling about their media consumption.

People do not owe you constantly having to explain how or why they're consuming specific media.

People are not obligated to jump hoops in order for you to validate what they consume in media. You are not a dictatorship on who can consume or enjoy media and how. Nobody has to constantly 'prove' they're consuming media in a 'right' or 'healthy' way.

Someone enjoying or consuming X type of media does not come with the inherent obligation of being expected to perform virtue signalling and grovelling to prove they're not a bad person for it.

Nobody is obligated to defend, validate, police or justify their media consumption.

By the way, no.

Fictional smut, be it literature or art, involving fictional characters who are children, is not child pornography because they are not actual children.

Hope this helps.

Stop watering down child pornography and its genuine horrors by trying to tell victims that made up little beings have the same rights as they do.

When people tell you its dangerous and dehumanizing to equate fictional people to real ones, listen to them.

Listen. I can't stop you from reading a post that gives a very specific piece of information or statement and then completely misunderstanding it and being resolute that it means something it doesn't.

But.

I wish I could.