No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Articulate and concise. I like it.
I don't really have anything more to add, except that we as a society need to make up our collective minds on cg and AI csam/CP soon.
I definitely think that cg/AI content is less bad (still bad, but less so) because there's no harm being done to real children from it; but those AI image engines needed to be trained on some form of content to be able to generate the images that they do, so I'm not sure how the training images factor in, or what would even be used for training that AI... I know rather little about how AI is trained at the moment, so I'm not sure if it can be done without source csam material or not... IMO, that factors into the morality of the output.
I definitely agree that sexual preference toward minors (aka paedophilia) is just that, a sexual preference; and that, in and of itself does not make someone a sex offender in the same way that being heterosexual doesn't make you a rapist or other form of sexual "deviant" (or however you want to say that. It's interesting to me to think that paedophiles may have a semi-legal way of getting porn for themselves (which causes no harm to children). I feel a bit bad for paedophiles in that they're basically forced to have relationships with persons that they don't find very sexually attractive, else they break the law. Not bad enough that I think that laws should change our anything, it's just a crap situation. It would be like having a preference towards men, as a man, in a world of heteros. The men are there and you're interested in them, but none of them are interested in you. Almost always that's not the case, there's other homosexual men that exist, no matter how rarely... in the case with pedos, there are exactly zero underage people who they can interact with at all sexually. I still don't think that should change, but at least with the internet, a gay man can go and find porn that interests them. With pedos is literally a crime to even look at, possess, or make any porn that appeals to them.
I can sympathize with the impossibility of their situation, that's all. For the record, I'm just done cis male with no interest in anyone too young to date. I can recognise their attractive qualities without being attracted to them (speaking mostly about those that have reached their sexual maturity here, who are still not 18 or whatever)... I can understand it, I'm not so hateful to want anyone who feels attraction to young people to die or anything, but young people don't have the experience to understand the situation they're getting into, when they're being mislead or gas lit, etc (though to be fair, a lot of "mature people seem to not know either, but that's another discussion)... Fact is, they're shit out of luck.
I'm sure many are forced into celibacy just to be lawful. I don't think any grown adult wants to be forced to be celibate; so I can understand the plight. AI/cg porn, tailored to that specific preference may give pedos an outlet that they can utilize to temper their urges and keep them on the right side of the law here. Of course it won't solve the problem entirely, the same way that rapists are still a thing, but it may severely reduce illegal activity and harm to children.
But I agree, it's a slippery slope (so to speak) because it can easily evolve into lowering the age of consent, and bringing back child marriages and such. Which IMO, isn't a desired outcome. I also don't think that content should intermingle with either social networks or existing porn sites, since it's so specific, it should be relegated to specific sites and not left flapping around the internet. It's also a vast minority of people that are afflicted, so segregation may be a minimum measure to keep things somewhat clean. I know I don't want AI generated CP content mixed in with my usual porn browsing... I'm sure there's plenty of people in the same boat, so IMO that's a minimum. But I'm only one voice in the society, so I don't make the decision; I'm interested to see what decision is finally made and implemented, whenever we get there.
As a disclaimer: I'm not attracted to underage people. I'm also not a doctor or scientist, or psychologist or anything else. I'm not in favor of anything here, besides society making a decision, and I'm just positing that it could be beneficial to society as a whole. I welcome other opinions, except those by people whom are heavily religious. Good day.
I've seen a paper--which I unfortunately did not bookmark--that seemed to indicate that most pedophiles were not exclusively pedophiles; many are able to have romantic and sexual relationships with age-appropriate partners. They also tend to have a distinct gender preference for minors (e.g., a person that is a heterosexual and a pedophile will prefer minors that are in-line with their sexual orientation). The ones that are 'pure' pedophiles--not sexually attracted to any adults at all--do not seem to have a gender preference, which kinda makes sense when you consider secondary sex characteristics as markers of physical maturity, e.g., young boys and girls look physically very similar aside from the genitals themselves. Again - I don't have the reference on this saved, so I might be misremembering, or misrepresenting it, but this is what I recall.
There's a genetic disorder--I believe exclusively in women--where they don't 'grow up'; they don't get very tall, they're largely lacking in secondary sexual characteristics, and I believe that they're infertile. I ran into a woman like that--who was with her partner--at a fetish event. It really gave me whiplash, because at first, second, and third glances she looked like she was 12, at an event that had explicit sexual activity in the open. It took a closer look at her face to realize that she was in her 30s. God bless her, she found someone that was attracted to her, and into the same shit she was into. So, y'know, there's that.
I've heard of that genetic condition. It's fascinating, and as far as I know, extremely rare.
I know that at least one has spoken publicly about her experience, and they touched on dating and the implication was that most of the people that are interested, are paedophiles, and that didn't sit well for her, and I expect that wouldn't sit well for most people, especially those with that condition.
Fascinating information all around. I don't have a doubt that is accurate.
She's got a catch-22 there; if she doesn't want to date anyone that's attracted to her because they're likely a pedophile, then she's not going to ever be able to have any romantic relationships (assuming that she wants them). I guess if that were me, I'd rather date a person that was sexually and romantically attracted to me--despite knowing that they were also sexually attracted to minors--than live life completely alone.
That was the take away. She was rather upset about it, which is apparently good for ratings but tragic overall.
I suppose it depends on what she really wants in life, which I won't presume to know. I wish her the best, that's not a fun condition to deal with.