(The Same Anon From The CSEM Thing, Sorry)

(The same anon from the CSEM thing, sorry)

When you said that even hyper-realistic art of a child could be considered CSEM, even if it was tecnically fake, a question popped out of my mind for some reason:

What if a artist decided to draw a fictional child character in a sexualized manner with a realistic artstyle, will this count as CSEM, even if the child doesn't exist?

(Sorry if I keep doing this type of questions)

As before this does technically hinge on the laws of where the content exists and where the creator who made it resides. The laws regarding visual images are often far more restrictive than those regarding literature.

For example, under the 2009 Coroners and Justice Act (s62-s68) within the United Kingdom it would be illegal if the artwork depicted sexual acts with a child or was explicitly focused on their genitals whether or not the child was real or fictional.

In the United States, the 2003 PROTECT Act defines that hyper-realistic sexual images (drawn, manipulated, ect) can only be prosecuted if they are indistinguishable from an image of a real child or cannot be proven as artificially created.

In Japan, however, pornography of fictional minors, even hyper-realistic, is a lucrative, legal and normalised industry. Its seen in everything from street art to manga.

Anti: Comes onto my very obviously proship blog and makes a shitty comment about proshipping thinking I'll magically agree with them Me: Does Not Agree AntI: 😡😡 now I'm gonna go through all your posts and leave even more shitty comments and then block you and whine about it on my blog 😡😡

There's a very unique kind of rage I get when you say you had a bad experience under a specific set of circumstances and some absolute bottom-feeding trollop will turn around and say oh but they had such a wonderful experience under a completely different set!!

Like no shit?? We did not have the same experience?? That's why yours was good and mine was bad??

I'm about to poke the hornet's nest with a bat at mach 9 speed, but:

Pedophilia is used by antis as propaganda.

I want you to know that if you advocate for genderless fashion and aesthetic and believe men can wear skirts, makeup, be feminine, ect and it doesn't 'mean anything' but then automatically assume and/or insist a man is queer in some way just because he does so, I am mentally beating you to death with a stick.

Is normalizing problematic stuff in fiction actually harmful to others in real life, or is that just something said to prevent further talk of such things?

The notion that fiction can in any way normalize "problematic stuff" is a discussionary roadblock in much the same way that the moment you try talking to certain people about certain things they whip out pedophilia as a trump card.

Its also why its actually so fucking important that from a young age we are given proper, well-rounded education and opportunities to exercise things like critical thinking, self-reflection and the ability to analyse what is in front of us to form our own conclusions instead of blindly following and believing whatever we see at first glance.

(Which applies to everything.)

Its also why its so important to separate things like creative appreciation and reality. Which we see in the whole anti vs proship debate all the time. We are supposed to observe fiction from the outside. We are not supposed to try to convert reality into fiction or exist in the real world as if we are in fiction.

Have you ever watched Hannibal and gone out to kill someone to turn them into a fancy European dish? Have you ever watched Game of Thrones and tried to fuck your sister?

Lolita is another prime example. The amount of people who didn't understand the actual point of Lolita and still don't is fucking staggering. Lolita is supposed to make you uncomfortable because you know its not right. You know its not normal. It doesn't romanticize or normalize pedophilia and older men going after young teenage girls. It does the opposite.

There are two types of people who believe or are susceptible to believing things they see in fiction are acceptable in real life; the uneducated and the mentally unstable.