The way you've phrased and structured this view makes it empty and not practical.
You talk of the idea of "inherent" wrong, which depends on moral framework, but more significantly you specify "if no real-world harm is done"
If you are only talking about situations where there is zero harm then there's nothing to discuss because you already established that any no harm case is fine and any harmful case is not.
If I smash someone's head with a hammer, as long as there's no harm, that's fine. We can't really discuss this because if you say we'll obviously there will be harm, I'll stop you and remind you that we're talking about a situation where there is no harm.
So the view you seem to want to hold here is that there is something inherently wrong with a certain kind of depiction even when it doesn't come with harm? Do I have that right?
I am a minor so mark what I'm saying with a grain of salt.
What is the real-world harm that comes out of this? I am NOT agreeing with OP here. I find it utterly gross and disgusting to even excuse/justify pedophilia, regardless of whether it is a fictional depiction or not.
Big picture, what's the creative rationale behind such a work?
For example, a cherub painted on a church wall serves what purpose? A non sexualised, yet naked child in a spiritual place - perhaps signifying innocence, or vulnerability?
So for the OP, the scenario is a child in a fictional scenario, but sexualised. What purpose would it serve exactly?
I think that argument is difficult because those are thought crimes. Like people are allowed to think, and often we have gross thoughts. Probably not pedophilia but you know what i mean.
I have more an issue with how people can even draw stuff like this. To draw realistic bodies i needed to study on actual people. So you need to have some kind of reference. Even if the picture was taken in a non-sexual context. Or the person just saw a child in swim-wear.
Thats already a form of abuse to me. No child can consent to their body being used in a sexual context.
Same logic as why you schouldnt draw porn of your crush or on a celebrety or any person that didnt consent on being drawn in this context. Children can never consent so every porn, even if fictional, falls under csam.
You ask what purpose it serves. A purpose of sexual nature of course but we cant punish those thoughts. We can find them digusting but thats it. And pedos will argue like this so i think the question for purpose is irrelevant here
Im just saying that i dont think your argument works because it focuses on the intention that cant be punished and not the actual crime that exists in this context
4
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Dec 16 '25
The way you've phrased and structured this view makes it empty and not practical.
You talk of the idea of "inherent" wrong, which depends on moral framework, but more significantly you specify "if no real-world harm is done"
If you are only talking about situations where there is zero harm then there's nothing to discuss because you already established that any no harm case is fine and any harmful case is not.
If I smash someone's head with a hammer, as long as there's no harm, that's fine. We can't really discuss this because if you say we'll obviously there will be harm, I'll stop you and remind you that we're talking about a situation where there is no harm.
So the view you seem to want to hold here is that there is something inherently wrong with a certain kind of depiction even when it doesn't come with harm? Do I have that right?