These are all worn voluntarily. This issue isn’t about the equivalent of scandalously clad young girls, it’s like if girls were being involuntarily stripped of their clothing by their classmates. It’s not about modesty standards it’s about sexual abuse.

And youre still trying to equate imagination with physical tangible media. And to be clear, if several of my friends said they were collectively beating off to the idea of me naked, I would be horrified and disgusted [...]

So the fundamental reality is that imagination and physical tangible media are very similar in this regard. That's what you just said.

a whole group of boys, some who i might not even know, were sharing AI generated porn with my face

And if they were just talking about a shared fantasy - with your face? You still have the "ring" aspect, the stranger aspect, the dehumanising aspect, etc.

This is why there's the connection that I keep getting at: there are many similarities, and you even say you'd feel similarly in both circumstances. So, the question is: do we go down the route of thought crime and criminalise the similar act? Or do we use this similarity to realise that it is not the act that is the problem, but the effects it can have on the victim?

If I was a teenager it would probably fuck me up pretty bad to know that someone who I thought was my friend just saw me as a collection of sexual body parts with a face attached.

Why do you think doing either thing (imagined or with pictures) means that someone just sees the person as a "collection of sexual body parts with a face attached"? Why can't someone see you as an ordinary human being? While you might not believe that either thing is normal, I can assure you it is prevalent. I'm sure that you and I have both been the subject of masturbatory fantasies without our knowledge. I don't say that to make you feel uncomfortable (and am sorry if it does) but to get you to think about how those acts have affected you, or not.

You talk again about how an image can be shared - but so can a fantasy (by talking about it). You talk again about how it's created without consent - but so is a fantasy.

Another thought experiment: someone on the other side of the world draws an erotic image, and it happens by pure chance to resemble a real person. Has that person been victimised, and abused? Does that image need to be destroyed by the authorities? If not, why not? The circumstances of the image are the same as if it were created as fake porn. If it reached that person's real circle of acquaintances, it could very well have the same effects - being shared, causing them shame, ridicule, abuse. It's another example that shows how the problematic part is not the creation of an image, but the use of that image to abuse someone.

But pedophilic thoughts are still wrong and are not something we tolerate people expressing.

It's my view that paedophilia, un-acted upon, is not wrong, as it harms no-one. A culture in which people are shamed, dehumanised and abused for the way their mind works is one in which those people won't seek help before they act on those thoughts.

Having thoughts like that is absolutely a sign of some obsessive tendencies and already forming devaluation of women and girls

It's kind of shocking to see you again erase male victims of (child) sexual abuse. For child abuse specifically, rates of victimisation are much closer than for adults.

You all say youre feminists until someone comes after your fucked up sexualities and your porn addictions. Always the same.

Luckily I know you're not representative of all of any group of people.

Schools can already do that though. You can get in trouble for bullying outside of school, and when i was a student athletes i had pretty strict restrictions on what i was allowed to do because i was an "ambassador" for the school.

I don't understand fully how this technology works, but, if people are using it to create sexual content of underage individuals, doesn't that mean the LLM would need to have been trained on sexual content of underage individuals? Seems like going after the company and whatever it's source material is would be the obvious choice here

AI can do penises just fine though, there's just no market demand for it so quick and easy deep fake sites are focused on female bodies.

But I disagree with this anyway, this will be the "bullied kid brings a knife to class" of AI.

Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people. Youre still not getting it. Youre still seemingly fundamentally confused about why having porn made of you without your consent is wrong.

I dont think pedophilic thoughts should ever be tolerated outside a counselors office. If I found out one of my friends was a pedophile I would never speak with them again. End statement. You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

You skipped over the section where I said that a group of boys collectively sharing in a fantasy of one of their female peers and using that fantasy to sexually gratify themselves would be severely psychologically traumatizing for the victim.

Don't make porn of people without their consent. You should face legal consequences for making porn of someone without their consent. The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone's mind. If the fantasy is being written down and then shared then its kind of erotica isnt it, and I also think its extremely fucked up to write erotica about someone you know. Don't do that either. Wild.

And you think these are positive things?

Your thought experiment is moot as these are real people.

That doesn't make sense at all. That real people are affected means it is important to get this right, which means it is necessary to think carefully about it. We don't disagree that real people are getting hurt but it seems to me that you take that to mean we should immediately jump to the first solution without regard for getting it right.

The difference between fantasy and porn is that porn is media content, it is a real image or video and not an imagination in someone’s mind.

You have again not taken the opportunity to say how that translates to differing harm and hence the necessity of a differing approach, even though when you talk about the harms you always talk about things that are the same between the two things.

You are in a very very very small minority of people if you disagree.

Yeah I know. I think the world is extremely backwards about paedophilia because the abhorrence of the crime of child sexual abuse gives them a blind-spot and makes them unable to separate the abhorrent act from the thought. I would have to guess that this is also what's going on here (but this is less extreme). That is, I think, confirmed by your rejection of making thought experiments due to the situation involving "real people", as if it is therefore impossible to think clearly about - maybe for you it is.

I can only hope that people learn to do so, because the current situation causes abuse (in the case of paedophiles) and is likely to lead down the road of wrongly punishing people for things done in private without external repercussions (in other cases).

Theres no other solution to this. Again, dont make porn of people without their consent. Its not hard. If thats hard for you, then you need to seek help.

I talk about things that are the same to dismiss that the question of difference even matters. They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

We hate pedophiles because children cannot consent. Children do not have sexuality in the same way that adults do. Being attracted to children is an attraction to exploitation, to the desire to victimize someone. Thats abhorrent. It is not a sexual orientation that the pedophile has no choice in. They have protected and engaged with a sexual fantasy of being able to victimize a child. I would never speak to someone again if they told me they were a pedophile. Most people wouldn't. Thats not a failure of society, it is socially necessary for such thoughts to be treated as unacceptable in all contexts. Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized and subject to extensive psychotherapy and monitoring.

Its the difference between writing about genocide of a fictional race and writing about genocide of a real race. The line between fiction and reality is of extreme moral relevance. Incidentally drawing something that happens to look like someone you've never seen and drawing someone you have seen is entirely different. Even if the output is the same. Because we recognize intent. We recognize context. You also keep asking what the harm is in creating porn of people without their consent, and ive already pointed out that its dehumanizing it is invasive it is exploitative it devalues women and girls and reduces them to their bodies, yet you still seem to have trouble empathizing with women and girls in this situation.

Do you like to make porn of people without their consent? Is that a passtime of yours? I can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation. You sound like you need help, you might have a disorder that interferes with your ability to fully connect with and understand the emotional experiences of other people.