Jim Burton wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 10:23 pm
NeverLoseKibou wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 9:21 pm
Jim Burton wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 3:26 pm
Excellent response - it's as if the
taboo is on the word "pedophilia" and acknowledging it rather than the state of being turned on by the idea of children.
The fantasy of an adult woman eroticising childhood "innocence" is reserved entirely for consenting adult women. Almost as if it were a power game against children - a celebration and protection of their lesser status.
It is the age gap that makes it "pedophilic", and not the fantasy itself.
But if that were true, then why is pedophilic fantasy art and AI generated fantasy content illegal? Why is it illegal to have graphic fantasy conversations about sex with children? Why in the UK is barely legal porn becoming illegal? That's people of a legal age depicting fantasy scenes depicting young people? In none of these situations is an actual child involved, only consenting adults engaged in fantasy play.
Because the line is drawn just before the acknowledgement of pedophilic desires towards
real children (see bold). There is hand-wringing around what type of content (and its use) can be taken as an admission to pedophilic desires, and also over the definition of "child". Typically this has favored written content over images, but there are counter-examples - see for example how those who defend porn regulations in the UK, and the prosecution of the ageplay author in Australia were adamant this material refers to real children.
It is interesting and what you're saying makes sense and does explain how the law is exercised.
It isn't immediately intuitive, I've found it confusing how the law is exercised in the past. A photo of naked child is held by two people, one is a pedophile, the other is not, the way the laws treats that photo is different for each. Why, when it's the same photo? If a drug addict and a non-drug addict held a bag of cocain, they would each be prosecuted, and yet in the case of an image it is different. I have heard it said that the reason it's treated different is intent or how it is viewed, the non-pedophile see's it as just a picture of a naked person, a pedophile could get sexual enjoyment from the image. I've never felt that is a sensible line because a pedophile may not get sexual satisfaction from it, a non-pedophile could depending on other aspects of their personality. A sadist who isn't a pedophile could look at it and become aroused at the idea of sadistic acts, or a bully might see it and become aroused at the idea of exploiting the image for entertainment. Intend and reaction is detemined by so many factors that it seems ham-fisted to just say a pedophile sees it in a harmful way and a non-pedophile doesn't.
But ham-fisted or not, since that is how the law operates then it makes sense that things like written conversations augment the case that a person is gaining sexual satisfaction from an image. It seems odd since being a pedophile isn't illegal, but an AI generated image, or written text, that gives a pedophile satisfaction as a result of their nature which they have no control over, is considered illegal. It's the equivalent of someone having a desire for sweet foods, is handed a cake, and eats the cake, not harming anyone in the process, is considered bad because they enjoyed it, while the same cake given to someone who doesn't have a sweet tooth but eats it anyway is considered acceptable. It was the act of enjoying the cake that is bad.
What you've said does make a lot of sense, it explains how the law interpretes these things and operates which is important because it isn't intuitive. I always believed the law was based on actions, I never appreciated that it's also based on feelings and beliefs.