>>942514351
The distinction isn’t about whether fiction can depict things that don’t work in real life — obviously it can, and people enjoy all kinds of imaginative content. The issue is harm and consent. With depictions of sexualized children, even in fiction, there’s a societal consensus that these are inherently exploitative representations, because they model or normalize abuse of real minors, who cannot consent.
Comparing this to military games, anthropomorphized animals, or vore isn’t equivalent. Soldiers, adult characters, and fictional monsters are either consenting adults or clearly fictional and abstract enough to avoid normalizing real-world abuse. Sexualized depictions of children cross a line that the others don’t, which is why they’re treated differently under law and ethics.
Fiction can be free, but freedom isn’t without boundaries — especially when it comes to protecting vulnerable people.
>>942514635
I get the argument about “it’s just fiction” and freedom of expression — that’s true for a lot of content. But the reason sexualized depictions of children are treated differently isn’t about direct causation; it’s about what they represent. A depiction of a child in a sexualized context maps onto a real, unambiguous category of harm: minors cannot consent. That’s fundamentally different from shooting enemies in a game, fantasizing about adult characters, or even abstractized depictions of animals.
Being attracted to prepubescent children, even if only in fantasy, fits the definition of pedophilia. That doesn’t automatically make someone a criminal, just as thinking violent thoughts doesn’t make someone a murderer. But society draws a clear ethical line: sexualized depictions of children are inherently dangerous to normalize because they reinforce a mindset aimed at those who cannot consent.
