Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TwoBrains

Registered Member
Thanks for all the replies to my previous thread; the perspectives there were helpful to finding a conclusion for myself. (Sorry for not responding there; life came at me fast, and I had little time to spare while the conversation was still ongoing.) I'd like to bring up another, similar quandary that my mind's been undecided on lately.

Until recently, I've been of the firm opinion that the existence of fictional child porn, such as [advertisement deleted] and [advertisement deleted], is inherently harmful because it can be used by child sexual abusers to groom minors by convincing them that child/adult intimate relationships are acceptable and non-harmful. Under this model, creators and consumers of that material would be morally responsible for that grooming by creating the material and motivating the creation of further material, respectively.

However, as I've read discussions about the matter elsewhere, I've encountered the argument that since fictional child porn isn't created for grooming purposes, and groomers use it outside its intended purpose and the creator/audience dynamic, that the only person morally culpable for its grooming use is the groomer themself, not the creator or the portion of the audience that doesn't sexually groom. I'm not sure if this argument is logically sound, but I can't formulate a refutation to it from the other side of the issue.

I detest fictional child pornography, and I'd be happy if it were illegalized everywhere. However, I'm not sure if my visceral disgust is blinding me to a logical point that it won't let me fully consider, and so I'd like some outside perspectives on the matter to help interrogate my beliefs to see which side they really fall on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mod Hat — Thread under review

Until recently, I've been of the firm opinion that the existence of fictional child porn, such as lolicon and shotacon, is inherently harmful because it can be used by child sexual abusers to groom minors by convincing them that child/adult intimate relationships are acceptable and non-harmful. Under this model, creators and consumers of that material would be morally responsible for that grooming by creating the material and motivating the creation of further material, respectively.

However, as I've read discussions about the matter elsewhere, I've encountered the argument that since fictional child porn isn't created for grooming purposes, and groomers use it outside its intended purpose and the creator/audience dynamic, that the only person morally culpable for its grooming use is the groomer themself, not the creator or the portion of the audience that doesn't sexually groom. I'm not sure if this argument is logically sound, but I can't formulate a refutation to it from the other side of the issue.

I detest fictional child pornography, and I'd be happy if it were illegalized everywhere. However, I'm not sure if my visceral disgust is blinding me to a logical point that it won't let me fully consider, and so I'd like some outside perspectives on the matter to help interrogate my beliefs to see which side they really fall on.

It's one thing to carefully parse our language in addressing controversial subject matter, but that's just a little much. The proposition and included retort form a false dichotomy. The distribution of child pornography is itself problematic. While I normally would suggest interrogation is the wrong word for questioning one's own beliefs, perhaps there are occasions when it works, especially regarding priorities.

The thread is currently under review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top