Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

  • FishFace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    23 hours ago

    If a boy fantasises sexually about a girl, is that harmful to her? If he tells his friends about it? No, this is not harmful - these actions do not affect her in any way. What affects the girl is how the boys might then treat her differently than they would do someone they don’t find sexually attractive.

    The solution, in both cases, has to be to address the harmful behaviour. The only arguments for criminalising deepfakes themselves are also arguments for criminalising sexual fantasies. that is why people are talking about thought crime, because once you criminalise things that are harmless on their own, but which might down the line lead to directly harmful behaviour, there is no other distinction.

    The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form.

    Both of these, for example, apply just as readily to discussing a shared sexual fantasy about someone who didn’t agree to it.

    No distinction, that is, other than this is new and icky. I don’t want government policy to be dictated by fear of the new and by what people find icky, though. I do lots of stuff people find icky.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      No an image that is shared and distributed is not the same as a fantasy in someone’s head. That is deranged. Should CSAM also be legal because making it illegal is like criminalizing the fantasies of pedophiles? Absolutely insane logical framework you have there.

      This isnt fantasy. It is content. It is media. It is material. It is produced without the consent of the girls and women being sexualized and it commodifies their existence, literally transforming the idea of them into sexual media consumed for the gratification of boys and men.

      It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic, so impassive, so detached from the real world and the consequences of this, that you could even make this comparison. You have seemingly no idea what youre talking about if you believe that pornography is the same thing as mental fantasies.

      And even in the case of mental fantasies, are those all good? Is it really a good thing that boys see the mere existence of the girls around them as inherently some kind of sexual availability?

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        23 hours ago

        When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.

        For all you have said - “without the consent” - “being sexualised” - “commodifies their existence” - you haven’t told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:

        1. if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
        2. if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
        3. I don’t know what the “commodification of one’s existence” can actually mean - I can’t buy or sell “the existence of women” (does buying something’s existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don’t see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way

        It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,

        I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.

        • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          13 hours ago

          I am just genuinely speechless than you seemingly do not understand how sickening and invasive it is for your peers to create and share sexual content of you without your consent. Yes its extremely harmful. Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they’ve already decided that you’re a sexual experience for them.

          We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal. It should be against the law to turn someone’s images into AI generated pornography. It should also be illegal to share those images with others.

          • FishFace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Its not a matter of feeling ashamed, its a matter of literally feeling like your value to the world is dictated by your role in the sexualities of heterosexual boys and men. It is feeling like your own body doesnt belong to you but can be freely claimed by others. It is losing trust in all your male friends and peers, because it feels like without you knowing they’ve already decided that you’re a sexual experience for them.

            Why is it these things? Why does someone doing something with something which is not your body make it feel like your body doesn’t belong to you? Why does it not instead make it feel like images of your body don’t belong to you? Several of these things could equally be used to describe the situation when someone is fantasised about without their knowledge - why is that different? In Germany there’s a legal concept called “right to one’s own image” but there isn’t in many other countries, and besides, what you’re describing goes beyond this.

            My thinking behind these questions is that I cannot see anything inherent, anything necessary about the creation of fake sexual images of someone which leads to these harms, and that instead there is an aspect of our society which very explicitly punishes and shames people - woman far more so than men - for being in this situation, and that without that, we would be having a very different conversation.

            Starting from the position that the harm is in the creation of the images is like starting from the position that the harm of rape is in “defiling” the person raped. Rape isn’t wrong because it makes you worthless to society - society is wrong for devaluing rape victims. Society is wrong for devaluing and shaming those who have fake images made of them.

            We do know the harm of this kind of sexualization. Women and girls have been talking about it for generations. This isnt new, just a new streamlined way to spread it. It should be illegal.

            Can you be more explicit about what it’s the same as?

            • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              42 minutes ago

              The sexualization of women and girls is pervasive across literally every level of western culture. What do you think the purpose is of the victims head and face being in the image? Do you believe that it plays an incidental and unrelated role? Do you believe that finding out that, there is an entire group of people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body, has no psychological consequences for you whatsoever? I’m just talking about it and it makes me want to throw up. It is a fucking nightmare. This is not normal. This is not creating a healthy relationship with sexuality and it is enforcing a view of women and their bodies existing for the gratification of men.

              You continuously attempt to extrapolate some very bizarre metaphors about this that are not at all applicable. This scenario is horrifying. Teenage girls should not be subject to scenarios like this. It is sexual exploitation. It is dehumanization. It promotes misogynistic views of women. This is NOT a matter of sexual liberation. Youre essentially saying that men and boys can’t be expected to treat girls and women as actual people and instead must be allowed to turn their friends and peers into fetishized media content they can share amongst each other. Thats fucking disgusting. The longer you talk the more you start to sound like an incel. I’m not saying you are one, but this is the kind of behavior that they defend.

              • FishFace@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                27 minutes ago

                Do you believe that finding out that, there is an entire group of people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body, has no psychological consequences for you whatsoever?

                Do you think the consequences of finding out are significantly different than finding out they’re doing it in their imagination? If so, why?

                Youre essentially saying that men and boys can’t be expected to treat girls and women as actual people and instead must be allowed to turn their friends and peers into fetishized media content they can share amongst each other.

                And, just to be clear, by this you mean the stuff with pictures, not talking or thinking about them? Because, again, the words “media content” just don’t seem to be key to any harm being done.

                Your approach is consistently to say that “this is harmful, this is disgusting”, but not to say why. Likewise you say that the “metaphors are not at all applicable” but you don’t say at all what the important difference is between “people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality taking pictures of your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using alorthimically derived likenesses of your naked body” and “people who you thought were your friends but are in actuality imagining your head and masturbating to the idea of you performing sex acts for them using imagined likenesses of your naked body”. Both acts are sexualisation, both are done without consent, both could cause poor treatment by the people doing it.

                I see two possiblities - either you see this as so obviously and fundamentally wrong you don’t have a way of describing way, or you know that the two scenarios are fundamentally similar but know that the idea of thought-crime is unsustainable.

                Finally it’s necessary to address the gendered way you’re talking about this. While obviously there is a huge discrepancy in male perpetrators and female victims of sexual abuse and crimes, it makes it sound like you think this is only a problem because, or when, it affects women and girls. You should probably think about that, because for years we’ve been making deserved progress at making things gender-neutral and I doubt you’d accept this kind of thing in other areas.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

          The harm is:

          • Those photos now exist in the world and can lead to direct harm to the victim by their exposure
          • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
          • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
          • your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.
          • FishFace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

            No, but the harm certainly is not the same as CSAM and it should not be treated the same.

            • it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
            • The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.

            as far as I know there is no good evidence that this is the case and is a big controversy in the topic of fake child porn, i.e. whether it leads to more child abuse (encouraging paedophiles) or less (gives them a safe outlet) or no change.

            your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

            If someone fantasises about me without my consent I do not give a shit, and I don’t think there’s any justification for it. I would give a shit if it affected me somehow (this is your first bullet point, but for a different situation, to be clear) but that’s different.

            • atomicorange@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Hm. I wasn’t expecting the pro-child porn argument. All I can say is that’s absolutely legally and morally CSAM, and you’re fuckin nasty. Oof. Not really gonna bother with the rest because, well, yikes.

              • FishFace@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Hey, it’s OK to say you just don’t have any counter-argument instead of making blatantly false characterisations.