Out of 11 we have:
Maggie Simpson Lisa Simpson Meg Griffin Louise Belcher
And maybe Hayley Smith? Or is she 18?
Anyways, that’s a really high proportion, almost half.
Comment on Rule 34 rule
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
The fraction of teenage/underage girls on that list is too damn high (hell, Louise is 9)
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
MBM@lemmings.world 21 hours ago
Maggie Simpson
You almost gave me a heart attack. It’s Marge. (that said, I trust internet perverts enough to go for adult Maggie)
RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Hayley is like 19/20. Meg is in high school
capuccino@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Meg is 18yo btw
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
There’s this joke once where Quagmire asks Meg if she’s 18 yet. She says nope and he walks away.
straightjorkin@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No, because Chris is the older brother and still goes to high school.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Hayley is in college. Afaik Meg is underage though.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Hayley would get it tho.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 21 hours ago
Shitty taste in men too
toddestan@lemm.ee 12 hours ago
If it makes you feel any better, from a quick scan through some of the images the vast majority of them at least seem depict the characters as older and grown up.
Ibaudia@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I agree but the availability of csam on the internet (real or simulated) reduces the instances of real-world abuse so… take that as you will I guess :/
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 21 hours ago
I’m not arguing against rule 34ing these characters.
But I refuse to believe that the fraction of actual pedophiles on rule34 is that high such that three of the top 11 haven’t even hit puberty yet.
I think that lots of these numbers comes from some sort of taboo breaking.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Also there is probably some level of inflation from the characters being present even if they aren’t necessarily part of the act. IE a porn comic where Bart and Lisa are complaining about thumping, cut to Marge and Homer fucking.
I rather like my hentai and have seen this type of thing frequently enough to say it’s semi common. Though I am not into Simpsons personally, a bit too abstract and too far away from human coloration to enjoy.
markovs_gun@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Does it? I used to see this argument a lot on Reddit back in the early days when there were a lot more pedos on there and I don’t really buy it. Are there any actual studies on this? I feel like there have got to be better ways at managing it than that at least from a clinical standpoint
Zwiebel@feddit.org 1 day ago
Controversial opinion: If killing npcs in video games is fine and shouldn’t land you in prison for murder, because they are fictional and not real people, then porn of “underage” fictional characters is also fine and shouldn’t be illegal.
Finding something disgusting is not a proper reason to make something illegal. The only relevant aspect is whether it causes harm to others or not.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I’m not talking about legal judgement (I practically never do) and I’m not even talking bout legit PDF files.
It’s just disgusting that rule 34 of literal children scores this high.
0xD@infosec.pub 1 day ago
You can say “pedophiles”.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
But saying PDF files is funny
OmgItBurns@discuss.online 14 hours ago
Can we start calling them Adobe Lovers?
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 8 hours ago
In the UK it doesn’t matter if its a photo of a real person or not, porn that depicts a child is illegal.
Tbh I think with the use of AI at this point this might be a pretty good law to have. “It was AI generated” is not a defence. Realistically if you are doing it for yourself no one will find out so there is some kind of argument as to it being harmless, but when you start doing other things with those images such as using them for blackmail the police should be able to use that as sufficient evidence to charge you.
Kaboom@reddthat.com 2 hours ago
That’s just the UK though. They have their own issues
erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Legality and morality don’t necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that’s something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.
Zwiebel@feddit.org 1 day ago
They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.
That’s my whole point, it make all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn’t exist.
That’s why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways)
I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 hours ago
I still find it fucked up that so many people are aroused by sexualising children, even though they are fictional.
Denjin@lemmings.world 1 day ago
I’m normally an anti-slippery slope person but there’s a definite escalatory nature to how paedophiles operate, it’s easy to see how images of fictional children can evolve into images of actual children.
Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 23 hours ago
How is this argument different than the “video games cause violence” argument?
Gloomy@mander.xyz 23 hours ago
Because your not trying to fulfill the wish to murder a person by substituting it to computer character.
At least some mass murderers and school shooters have played violent games in order to fulfill their violent phantasies, couldn’t do so in a long term and murdered real people instead.
Same goes with pedophiles. They want to fuck a child, use fictional characters to fulfill the phanstasy, get used to it and then escalate to pictures of real children and eventually real children.
The “video games cause violence” argument is wrong, because the cast majority of gamers don’t try to use games as a substitute action for violent behaviour.
Denjin@lemmings.world 23 hours ago
Because as I said, people with an interest in CSAM tend to escalate in their behaviour. Most don’t jump straight into child pornography but start with less serious things like jailbait and non-sexualised images of children etc. It doesn’t take a huge leap to see the same pathway with images of fictional children.
I’m not suggesting that everyone into this material will go on to abuse children or start to consume actual CSAM but there’s a non-zero amount of actual paedophiles who started their journey with this exact material.
Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
loli haet pizza