sorrybookbroke

Holy shit man what the fuck are you on about.

If somebody jacks off to the thought of a child they are a pedophile. Yes.

The cartoon has a childs proportions. It has a childs body. The creator has defined it as a child. You are unironically doing the "it's a thousand year old dragon" shit.

You are a danger to the kids you claim to have. Do you jack off to the thought of their naked bodies? Do you think that would be ok to do? If you do nothing to harm them directly by your own reasoning it would be ok right?

No. That is abhorent. Please get professional help

I would agree if we see some meta-analysis suggesting this but the evidence is small towards the effect. The studies you state in other comments are inconclusive, are not the majority, and only show mild effects. This is not scientific fact yet and all evidence shows a mild effect at best.

Even if it did though they are still a pedophile. They are masturbating to child porn. We should not accept that as a positive thing and we should not support people who make child porn. These are the people who need to seek help most. If part of that help is jacking it to drawn child porn so be it but be it so under the care of a professional.

The fact that one doesn't offend only stops one from being a monster. A child molester, or child rapist. A pedophile is still immoral.

My issue is that child porn is inherently wrong. It is a fundamental negative whether drawn or generated. Some things are not about material harm they are about base morality. Sexualizing children is a fundamental wrong.

If the only thing stopping you from raping, molesting, or otherwise harming a child is drawn child porn you are not a good person. That is terrifying, and disgusting.

Lastly, our brains are neuroplastic. Anyone can develop a fetish through constant exposure to something in a positive sexual setting. Something may disgust you, say poop, but if you jack off to the thought long enough you will develop a fetish. This, unlike the claim that drawn child porn is helpful, is well known. Harm to children or not this creates more pedophiles. People who think of children in a sexual manner

I shouldn't need to define child porn but here's a definition:
Sexually gratifying content involving the sexualization of children.

This fictional child is a child. Porn of that child is child porn. Drawn, generated, or any other way this is child porn.

I've heard the "it's just pixels" argument before and can't accept that. If we can recognize that the pixels are pornographic, that they represent the character lucy, and that lucy is a child we can agree that this is porn of a child. Child porn.

How does this not match the term "child porn".

It is drawn porn of a child

The "kink" you are picking is drawn child porn. I don't care if nobody was directly hurt by your consumption of drawn child porn you are consuming child porn. You are a pedophile. Somebody attracted to children sexually.

I don't care if studies showing pedophiles who watch drawn child porn aren't likely to offend. They are pedophiles. I know it's a wild thing to state but I don't like pedophiles. The debate on legality due to harm reduction is another thing all-together but at no point did I bring that up. I only asked that we not support or make AI porn of fictional children.

Your support of a subset of child porn, particularly AI and drawn is noted though. Thank you for stating as much.