Here, I’ll help you:

It’s fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

As I said, there are already 3 top comments explaining to you why you’re being downvoted. I don’t need to explain myself when I mostly agree with them, I just upvote them.

If everyone had to explain every downvote, we would have hundreds of comments on each post, and most of them would say the same thing.

The research that I’ve read on the subject suggests that Epstein pedophiles are opportunistic - they offend when there is an opportunity to do so. That could be having a martini on Epstein’s island, or it could be browsing Reddit and seeing a post from r/jailbait. During that first encounter, if the person has enough excuses to be able to say it’s not that bad, it’s not illegal, it’s not actually harming anyone, then they are likely to seek out more “content” and re-offend in worse ways.

In other words, if we make cruelty free imitation child porn available to natural pedophiles, we’re going to create more Epstein pedophiles. We’re not actually helping by doing that. It’s counterproductive.

If you approve someone, you don’t need to explain yourself, you would just say “I agree with this guy”. There’s no substance to it.

However, if you downvote, you are saying “this is wrong”. Which is much different. When you accuse someone of being wrong, you should explain yourself, otherwise you’re being a dick.

It’s fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

EDIT: I’m absolutely in awe that this comment specifically gathered so many downvotes. And this is a good example of what I was referring to. Lots of people downvoted, and 0 ppl said why.

You may think that those upvotes explain the downvotes, but they really don’t. And they don’t to a small majority of the people, so perhaps you can help out. A good start would be:

You’re getting downvoted because

Or

I’m downvoting your post/comment because

Or if you feel the upvoted comments are indeed addressing my concern “legal porn that looks like CP is morally extremely questionable and either won’t help the growth of Lemmy or would attract people I rather not associate with”, you can copy paste it.

I also want to state this is occurring at a time where we are discovering pedophelia run all the way to the white house.

[>]i leave a comment that someone in the legal pornography resembles a minor despite the fact that they do not

[>]you get in trouble

great

This exists in nearly every society, from the western “barely legal” porn theme over Mohammed having child wifes to japanese mangas which sexualize schoolgirls. (Edit: This is what the situation looks like in Brasil.) It is therefor important to acknowledge that these impulses exist, make sure children are protected by law and to have a societal understanding that children are harmed if those impulses are made reality.

Those who suffer from having those impulses need ways to cope so that children are safe - either by offering therapy, “barely legal”-porn or “fauxbait”, without ostracizing those who choose these things over harming children. If a different label for the same thing helps to even keep one child safe it’s worth it. That would be a responsible way to deal with this situation.

It’s similar to those having a bad temper and aggressive impulses - giving those people an “out” by offering therapy, from competitive settings where they can live out their impulses (which can be anything from sports over video games to board games) to hitting each other with pool noodles and going into the woods to scream until their throats hurt.

All of it is simply channeling destructive impulses into non-harmful ways to cope, and only an open and honest discourse will help.

PS. That was not an accusation but an observation of the normalisation of porn in all its varieties that suggests it would be remotely needed to distance one self from kiddy porn. I understand why, with jailbaits and ageplay kinks and hentai and furry depictions of 800 year old witches that look like children mixed in with all other porn in the endless flow. But for people that are not desensitised to having porn exposure 24/7, it is really weird for somebody to mention that they are not into child abuse. Not being into kiddie porn is the normal that does not have to be declared.

If you say that everyone downvoting simply has the fear that their preferred porn gets taken away, get corrected, and then double down by insinuating that i watch “kiddy porn”, you will have to read what i actually watch.

Edit: By the way, i AM interested in what you watch, because, you know, the accuser is often reflecting their own failings on others.

Yuk.

I understand the ease of downvoting, but the lack of well laid out arguments gives this entire platform a very yukkie vibe to me.

Also, for me personally it’s a question of ethics to prefer female friendly pornography - it’s still no 100% guarantee that everything is above board (i can’t exactly run background checks on everyone involved to make sure), but its important for me that my “consumption” is ethical in most areas of my life.

This is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction from the gooners.

By the way, personally I get sceptical of anyone that feels the need to clarify that they don’t watch kiddy porn. Shouldn’t that ring some kind of bell?

Everyone can have different kinks, fetishes and sexual proclivities (SFW), but once you’re essentially advocating for pornography that visually identical to child pornography, it’s time for that uncomfortable look in the mirror I think. The free speech absolutist argument doesn’t really hold water. What would the absolutist argument be if the child pornography was mades using Sora or something similar? No minors would be involved in making that either right? I’m all for free speech, but to push this angle seems really grasping at straws.

If a new user comes to Lemmy without NSFW filters and such content is among the first things they see, I wouldn’t expect them to sign up and become a regular contributor to the platform.

I was hoping !fediverse@lemmy.world would be a place where this can be discussed, which I suppose it is, as this will rank nicely as “controversial”.

You seem to mix some things up. There are pedophiles who have sexual attraction to children but know better, and there are people who rape children because they like the power imbalance.

The first group has simply discovered their attraction (and mostly beat themselves up over it) and would benefit from therapy and support, which they don’t get because of people like you. They also can benefit from things like “fauxbait”, where they can live out their kink without hurting anyone because there are only consenting adults in play.

The second group are in the Epstein files. They do it because they get off on the thought that someone is helpless. They are not pedophiles, they are simply the worst kind of rapist.

Make sure to direct your disgust on the second group, not the first, because the first one doesn’t deserve it.

Denying that those impulses exist is one of the reasons that people who are real pedophiles cant get professional help without fear of persecution. Pushing them into illegality just for having those thoughts is not only not fair (because they don’t have a choice who they are attracted to), but also pushes them into the dark corners of society where they cant get help and the really illegal shit happens.

Since there are only verified adults on display, there’s only one reason why someone cries for censuring - a moralin-drenched opinion and ignorance of other’s preferences.

People like this are the same who go after any type of media that doesn’t align with their own world view, and they always use censuring and hiding stuff for everyone, overstepping their limits and defining themselves as the only valid moral compass by which anyone should live - because they personally can’t cope with content they don’t agree with (mostly out of a misplaced sense of shame)

The same mindset empowers strongmen and populists in politics, who know exactly how to play those fools - with real life consequences (think pizzagate). This kind of behavior simply cannot be encouraged.

@kingofras@lemmy.world

If someone posted an image of small flatchested adult woman with the title “that woman has nice tits” you probably wouldn’t think anything of it (unless you’re into it) but when that same image is shown and the title is “that fake child has nice tits” it should raise some questions for you, like why even mention child? And that’s the issue with fauxbait. There’s nothing wrong with liking small women with small tits as long as they’re adults, but why is it necessary to take the extra step to frame the adult as a fake child? If you like those kinds of women you don’t need fauxbait, you can subscribe to small titties or tiny titties or flatchested of whatever the community would be called. You can get the same content without the “that’s a fake child” implication.

If you want to argue that they’re not actually implying the fake child porn then why call it fauxbait and continue using it? There are other communities with the same content, just ban the fauxbait community and use a different community. Even if they’re not implying it they’re still using a name that literally means fake child porn.