[Return]

Report a post

Preview
>>9280
I think in this specific case, if you dont have that attraction, you are gifted an oppurtunity to avoid engaging in it, you could do so for your own mental health.

But thats a choice. I dont think you should feel any guilt over a curiosity, an interest, or a want. I dont think anyone should feel bad about any desire. A desire is just that, it can make you suffer, but you havent done anything wrong until youve hurt someone.

Its my opinion that attraction to minors is not wrong, only acting on that attraction. Its more over my opinion that art turns productive dedtructive desires. While it may not be healthy for the people who engage in it, pornography addicts or those fueling fantasy until they become dangerous, it is healthy as an outlet for the artist. You have to consider how much of your responsibility you think other peoples actions are.

Lastly: if we draw a line between fantasy children and fantasy adults, we are deciding art which is amoral in real life also has similar moral consequences as art. In that case, guro, rape, enslavement, these are all wrongs which should also not be allowed. I dont think this is a slippery slope, I cannot see the logical difference between a moral stance against pedophilic art (pedophilic acts are wrong in real life and children should not be sexualized) and guro or rape (guro and rape are wrong in real life and violence should not be sexualized)

There is a slight difference where in the nature of the character being objectified is the significant factor in pedophilia, rather than the nature of the actions taken against the character in guro, but Im not sure this changes my opinion that pedophilia and guro are similar enough in their amorality that if one should be extinguished, both should.

The key difference really being that pedophilia is troubling to see and think about for people, but theyre used to horror movies. Id describe seeing something that gives one pedophilic vibes as a full, physical rejection of those works. It's repulsive to people. I think thats more or less the reason for the shakey legal status of the artwork.
Post number No.9282
Board Discussion
Optional. Describe what's wrong with it.