There are people using the sex mods to incorporate child abuse in their games

[billyms100]

I came across a website where people were discussing TS3 and TS4 sex mods and posting pictures from their game. I was shocked to see some of these pictures featuring child sex and pregnancy and reported it to the police immediately. I have no idea how they managed it and don't want to know, but was anyone aware that this was happening? I could see how it would be possible for teens but didn't know that it was for children as well.

[badandunusual]

your on loverslab, where there is rape, slavery, amputations, bestiality, and your shocked someone molest pixelated children 

[Veniat]

It's not that shocking, almost expected really when you consider most the stuff that goes on in Japanese hentai with shota and lolicon. 

Long as it doesn't happen here, and doesn't involve real life children I couldn't care less, and in most countries the digital depiction of child abuse and sexual acts isn't illegal so long as it's a drawing or something like a 3D animation.  If you're seeing it online chances are it was made or hosted in a country where this kinda stuff is legal.

I think in the long run the only people who could really do anything about this would be the content creators themselves or the owners of the sites where it's being hosted.

[DoctaSax]

As far as I know, the sex frameworks for sims games, much like those for beth games, do not allow sex with children. However, somebody with enough skill and determination would be able to circumvent those limitations, and there's little anybody can do about that.

 

Ofc, despite the rampant depravity over here on LL, we don't allow game porn involving children. It's simply too risky for a website that wants to remain online. If you ever spot any, report it to us (not the po-po, please).

[Slaves of Tamriel]

Honestly, I don't watch child pornographies simply because it's not my type of fetish. But I can't help but feeling that there's a bit of paranoia about the subject which put it quite out of proportion, possibly limiting freedom of expression too much.

 

I'm not denying that sexual abuse of children is something bad. No, it's not just something bad - it's really unimaginable thing to do to any children which potentially destroy their lives forever.

 

But I have to ask, isn't murdering people at least as bad as raping children? Then why we are allowed to massacre people in video games, sometimes even innocent people just for fun, like in GTA series?

 

Isn't it because, as a responsible adult person, we are assumed to have an ability to draw a strict line between the reality and our fantasies, so that we never really become serial killers even we enjoy killing people for fun in video games?

 

Then why we can't do that for having sexual fantasies about children too?

 

I believe if any person risks himself of being a real pedophile sexual offender by playing a game with such a theme, he shouldn't even allowed to play such games like Skyrim, because it allows you to steal, murder, and with some help from mods, rape, torture, and all the other really terrible things, except for abusing children.

 

I agree that it's one of our utmost priority as an adult to protect our children from being harmed by sexual predators. But I cannot imagine playing video games depicting such a theme would make anyone a real pedophile, anymore than playing GTA will make them a real gangster.

 

I believe we should judge people by their ability to keep their fantasies from real life, not by kind of fetishes they have.

[Veniat]

I think it depends on the cause of the fantasy, if you're into it due to an attraction to children than it's pretty likely you're going to act it out in real life; if the fantasy is simply due to interest, or due to elements of the fantasy itself, like corruption, which is one of my interests that can crossover to early to late teens in most hentai games. 

There's some pretty good reasons to ban it in my opinion, though I don't support making any kind of artwork illegal no matter the contents so yeah, I wish it was legal so long as it's a depiction.

[karlpaws]

 

But I have to ask, isn't murdering people at least as bad as raping children? Then why we are allowed to massacre people in video games, sometimes even innocent people just for fun, like in GTA series?

 

Isn't it because, as a responsible adult person, we are assumed to have an ability to draw a strict line between the reality and our fantasies, so that we never really become serial killers even we enjoy killing people for fun in video games?

 

Then why we can't do that for having sexual fantasies about children too?

 

I think the difference is that you can have near violent actions in play that do cross the line into murder.

 

Is painball simulated murder? Kids playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians with toy guns or fingers? The ability of a well adjusted person to separate play, make believe, imagination or game from real life with consequences is what leads to children growing into adults. As long as it is all done in fun and there are no consequences (as the person is not murdered, or the murder victim is not real) a healthy, balanced individual can participate.

 

Sex with children however is not the same thing at all. There isn't a similarity to anything a well adjusted adult would do.  While some countries do allow for simulated sex under the theory that the people are better off sated with the imaginary and not real children, there is the tacit admission that the activity is not something that would be allowed otherwise.

 

The moral judgement is that normal people can enjoy fake rampages, even fake rapes.  Normal people cannot enjoy sex with children, rape or not, primarily because children are not developed to the point of being attractive in a sexual way to normal adults. Any who would "find that their fetish" demonstrate a deviancy society does not yet accept.

[Slaves of Tamriel]

 

I think the difference is that you can have near violent actions in play that do cross the line into murder.

 

Is painball simulated murder? Kids playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians with toy guns or fingers? The ability of a well adjusted person to separate play, make believe, imagination or game from real life with consequences is what leads to children growing into adults. As long as it is all done in fun and there are no consequences (as the person is not murdered, or the murder victim is not real) a healthy, balanced individual can participate.

 

Sex with children however is not the same thing at all. There isn't a similarity to anything a well adjusted adult would do.  While some countries do allow for simulated sex under the theory that the people are better off sated with the imaginary and not real children, there is the tacit admission that the activity is not something that would be allowed otherwise.

 

The moral judgement is that normal people can enjoy fake rampages, even fake rapes.  Normal people cannot enjoy sex with children, rape or not, primarily because children are not developed to the point of being attractive in a sexual way to normal adults. Any who would "find that their fetish" demonstrate a deviancy society does not yet accept.

 

I have to differ, as I can't really see how sexually abusing pixelated children has bigger risk of making that person a real pedophile than killing pixelated adults would make him a real life serial killer.

 

Making an actual child pornography could be a different matter, because it involves real children who might not have enough judgement about the situation. But in case of artistic depiction, I doubt there's any significant differences to make them more dangerous than other similar cases.

 

And I would hesitate to call that specific fetish as 'abnormal'. I normally don't watch scat porns, but I don't think I have any right to call those who do as 'abnormal', while I can assert that putting an iron collar on girl's neck, which theme I personally enjoy, to be something perfectly normal and safe.

 

Claiming that normal people can enjoy fake rapes, but can't enjoy sex with children sounds a bit arbitrary to me, especially when considering people usually married well under 18 in many different cultures in the past.

 

So, if we insist having sexual fantasies for anyone under 18 is something inherently depraved, then perhaps we can say that our ancestors were all depraved people because they didn't think it to be immoral to marry a child in today's standard.

 

I guess that 'today's standard' is the keyword here, as I believe it's something determined by social and cultural norm of that specific age, rather than something inherent in human nature that we should abhor having sexual fantasies about children.

 

And if it's just an arbitrary convention, I think it's very well to question the validity of its logic, especially when it doesn't really care if people fantasizing about murdering other people for fun, while taking a serious offense at seeing even a artistic depiction of children without clothes.

[karlpaws]

 

 

I think the difference is that you can have near violent actions in play that do cross the line into murder.

 

Is painball simulated murder? Kids playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians with toy guns or fingers? The ability of a well adjusted person to separate play, make believe, imagination or game from real life with consequences is what leads to children growing into adults. As long as it is all done in fun and there are no consequences (as the person is not murdered, or the murder victim is not real) a healthy, balanced individual can participate.

 

Sex with children however is not the same thing at all. There isn't a similarity to anything a well adjusted adult would do.  While some countries do allow for simulated sex under the theory that the people are better off sated with the imaginary and not real children, there is the tacit admission that the activity is not something that would be allowed otherwise.

 

The moral judgement is that normal people can enjoy fake rampages, even fake rapes.  Normal people cannot enjoy sex with children, rape or not, primarily because children are not developed to the point of being attractive in a sexual way to normal adults. Any who would "find that their fetish" demonstrate a deviancy society does not yet accept.

 

I have to differ, as I can't really see how sexually abusing pixelated children has bigger risk of making that person a real pedophile than killing pixelated adults would make him a real life serial killer.

 

Making an actual child pornography could be a different matter, because it involves real children who might not have enough judgement about the situation. But in case of artistic depiction, I doubt there's any significant differences to make them more dangerous than other similar cases.

 

And I would hesitate to call that specific fetish as 'abnormal'. I normally don't watch scat porns, but I don't think I have any right to call those who do as 'abnormal', while I can assert that putting an iron collar on girl's neck, which theme I personally enjoy, to be something perfectly normal and safe.

 

Claiming that normal people can enjoy fake rapes, but can't enjoy sex with children sounds a bit arbitrary to me, especially when considering people usually married well under 18 in many different cultures in the past.

 

So, if we insist having sexual fantasies for anyone under 18 is something inherently depraved, then perhaps we can say that our ancestors were all depraved people because they didn't think it to be immoral to marry a child in today's standard.

 

I guess that 'today's standard' is the keyword here, as I believe it's something determined by social and cultural norm of that specific age, rather than something inherent in human nature that we should abhor having sexual fantasies about children.

 

And if it's just an arbitrary convention, I think it's very well to question the validity of its logic, especially when it doesn't really care if people fantasizing about murdering other people for fun, while taking a serious offense at seeing even a artistic depiction of children without clothes.

 

 

Your claim that abusing pixels would make someone something is a strawman, unless you can find someone who would not enjoy having sex with a real child but does with a fake one.

 

Playing video games doesn't make people serial killers either. The serial killers that played games were already lacking the empathy and self control that keeps people from killing each other.

 

Fetishes are, literally, not normal. If they were desires held by a large majority of people they wouldn't be fetishes. Some are seen as harmless and either accepted by society or permitted and ignored or not accepted and the practitioners shunned or otherwise driven underground (or arrested and jailed). Scat doesn't arrouse most people, nylons arouse a few. BDSM in some of its many flavors has elements of consent that would cross the line into rape, were the consent not given ahead of time. I can't say I understand the attractiveness of it either, but if both parties are consenting, mature adults then it just falls into the many other fetishes present but not common in society.

 

Prepubescent children (and what I meant by child, and not teens) on the other hand are not physically ready for sex. Those still legally defined as children but who may be physically ready for sex are only not considered mentally ready. The legal age of maturity has changed throughout history and when cultures consider females as property and not having the capacity of legal majority, and the need for childbearing was paramount, marriage at 12 was possible, sometimes common.  This is a legal matter however, and I would bet a lot of those were not sexually attractive to their husbands at that age and it was purely a reproductive matter. 

 

"Today's Standards" is a large part of this, as recently as 50 years ago teenage females were not commonly garbed in the sexually suggestive ways they are now, advertising their biological readiness. That the inverse is true mentally and they are less prepared for the consequences and less adult in mind isn't really applicable to this conversation. The attractiveness to the mostly developed body is, I would suggest, natural and suggestive of a healthy mind. Sexual attractiveness to a body not ready is suggestive of an unhealthy mind and this is what society currently shuns and criminalizes. I am not sure that mindset ever was accepted or legal.

 

Shota and loli I am not familiar with enough to have a well thought opinion. What people find attractive does very greatly by culture and general population makeup, and (greatly stereotyping here) a shorter, less physically endowed ethnic group might be more prone to finding such still attractive where an entirely different group would not. There is also the question whether such artistic depictions are modeled more for the child or the teen. Child shota would fall into my "unhealthy mind" category while "teen shota" are merely illegal, currently, in many cultures.

 

Laws, ethics and morals have not always, or perhaps often, covered the same territory.

 

Biological children however should not be attractive to mature, and maybe not immature, others.  I might be misinformed, I might be uninformed, but while I've heard of homosexuals faking attraction to fit in, and bisexuals being attracted to both sexes, I haven't heard of a pedophile attracted to both children and non-children. It might be that any that are can resist their attraction to children and not get caught.

 

... and this might have gotten too long and stopped making sense.

[Slaves of Tamriel]

Playing video games doesn't make people serial killers either. The serial killers that played games were already lacking the empathy and self control that keeps people from killing each other.

 

I'm afraid either I have expressed my intention poorly or you have misread my post, because that was exactly my point.

 

If we can't claim people do criminal things because they played a video game, then why do we have to ban video games containing nude pictures of children as they obviously can't make anyone a pedophile sex offender?

 

Fetishes are, literally, not normal. If they were desires held by a large majority of people they wouldn't be fetishes.

 

If by 'normal' we mean majority, then yes you are correct. But aren't we discussing about possible moral implications, rather than statistical prevalence of those who find images of nude children to be sexually appealing?

 

Unless we are ready to condemn any sexual fantasies which are not shared by majority of population as 'immoral', I don't think it's very relevant to the topic in question.

 

Prepubescent children (and what I meant by child, and not teens) on the other hand are not physically ready for sex. Those still legally defined as children but who may be physically ready for sex are only not considered mentally ready.

 

True, but I don't think no one is 'physically ready' or willing to be stabbed or shot to death, but we don't have much problem when games let you murder people for fun.

 

So, I don't think we can use this as a justification for banning sexual depiction of children in video games.

 

The attractiveness to the mostly developed body is, I would suggest, natural and suggestive of a healthy mind. Sexual attractiveness to a body not ready is suggestive of an unhealthy mind and this is what society currently shuns and criminalizes. I am not sure that mindset ever was accepted or legal.

 

What about those mods which depict slavery, tortures, or even amputations? If we are ready to proclaim anyone who find an immature female body to be sexually attractive as 'unhealthy', shouldn't we also condemn those who love tortured, amputated body of women as 'perverse' and 'unhealthy'?

 

And as you said, it was quite common for girls to get married as early as 12 in many parts of the world in ancient and medieval days. But I doubt we should call ancient Romans or medieval English people were all mentally 'unhealthy' because they thought 12 is old enough to get married.

 

I think the complication arises simply because we are using a wrong moral standard in these matters - we don't really have to define what fetish is moral and what is not, because all we need to care is that anyone who hurt people against their will in real life - whether or not they also do so in a fantasy world -  deserves to be punished.

 

I believe we better not punish people for having certain kind of dispositions, or fantasies, and it does not matter whether that fantasies involve shooting an automatic rifle to innocent people, or having a sexual intercourse with a girl in chains, a girl without arms, without life, or another man, or even a dog.

 

Why we need to separate those involving children specifically from all the rests, and condemn anyone who have such fantasies as potential criminals, when killing innocent people or kidnapping and torturing women in real life is considered more serious crimes than peeping at nude body of children?

 

We don't have to be judgemental about those fantasies to know what is moral or not in real life, and that is what really matters, in my opinion.

[karlpaws]

We're either talking past each other or I am not making points clearly enough.

 

Serial killers are not the only ones playing murdering video games. Are there any non-pedophiles enjoying pedophilia in games? You say you won't condemn it but it doesn't appeal to you either, so I don't think you can really back up that claim.  I don't have any data either but that is what I am claiming.

 

The rest of the bloodsport mods are probably not catering to a fully healthy audience. On the other hand, capital punishment has been used for a while and justified as punishment for criminals. I think people are at some base level bloodthirsty and violent and is either part of our animal nature or fallen state, depending on your theology.

 

I do not think it is paranoia that drives pedophilia issues but the thought that "no one in his right mind would enjoy this, so there is no need for it in art."  Lockpicks can be used by law abiding people to open your locks with your permission. Artwork showing infants and other young children can have value and use.  Sexual portrayals of children have no redeeming value beyond a medicating value of those who would otherwise harm the children and we're not ready to call that necessary.  That's my understanding. I'm willing to be judgemental about that much. I think societies do need to have moral lines drawn, things they declare off limits and taboo. The ones that did not do so with little things later had trouble defining themselves on larger issues and lost themselves in relativism. When you can develop the data or come to an understanding you can change your accepted morals. Just giving in to what everyone wants is the actions of a child with no sense of consequences.

[Slaves of Tamriel]

Serial killers are not the only ones playing murdering video games. Are there any non-pedophiles enjoying pedophilia in games? You say you won't condemn it but it doesn't appeal to you either, so I don't think you can really back up that claim.  I don't have any data either but that is what I am claiming.

 

I suppose we don't really need to be an actual serial killer to understand that people sometimes feel certain violent urges, even if they fully understand doing so in real life is immoral and criminal. Actually, that might be one of the main reasons why a game like GTA is so popular.

 

I don't often feel such urges for being violent myself, but I can guess that much. So I suppose I can make a similiar assumption for people who might occasionally feel attracted to naked body of children, even if they fully understand it'd be an immoral and criminal act if they approach children with sexual intention in real life.

 

If we don't call the former group of people as actual 'serial killers', with what justification we claim that "only real sex offenders who are pedophiles would play such a game"?

 

If you think we should condemn people for simply having such a disposition, than I don't see why you are reluctant to do so for people who play GTA, as they clearly possess such a murderous disposition? Is fantasizing about killing innocent people any more moral than fantasizing about naked bodies of children?

 

Lockpicks can be used by law abiding people to open your locks with your permission. Artwork showing infants and other young children can have value and use. Sexual portrayals of children have no redeeming value beyond a medicating value of those who would otherwise harm the children and we're not ready to call that necessary.

 

I don't think it's a releant argument, because GTA is not just a modder's resource pack for guns, and neither all those BDSM/torture/amputation mods hosted on this site are for those people who want to recreate some medieval interrogation scene for historic accuracies.

 

There's no denying that those mods are made for, and played by those people who have such fantasies which involves sexually torturing people. And games like GTA are so successful, not because they mainly appeal to gun collectors, but for providing such an opportunity to vent people's violent and aggressive urges in a perfectly safe virtual world, which they can't do it in real life.

 

I don't think there's any logical arguments that can justify condemning those who love such games with a theme of pedophillia while reserving judgement on those who love all those BDSM/murder/torture type games.

 

At least, "guns can be used in other kinds of scenes" won't do, as guns in games are used to kill innocent people as well, as a naked body texture for children can be used for a bathing scene without any sexual context.

 

I think societies do need to have moral lines drawn, things they declare off limits and taboo. The ones that did not do so with little things later had trouble defining themselves on larger issues and lost themselves in relativism.

 

There's no need to judge people's fantasies in order to keep the society safe. If someone hurts other person without a consent, it's immoral and possibly criminal. It's a simple matter of fact.

 

If someone shot an innocent person to death in real life, we won't have the slightest problem if we don't know what kind of fantasies he used have to prosecute him. And banning such games like GTA won't make the country any safer from crimes than it currently is.

 

So, why are we so interested in preventing people from enjoying that specific kind of fantasies which involves naked children?

 

It's a very simple matter to me. If you do something bad in real life, you go to jail. If you fantasize about something nasty, or express them in an artistic form, it's none of the business for anyone who doesn't have a similar kind of preferences.

It only gets complicated because some people try to judge fantasies, or artistic depictions according to their real life implications.

 

Unless they can prove how killing bunch of innocent people with an automatic rifle is less immoral than watching a naked child's body, I doubt they can come up with any reasonable arguments to claim that why it's ok to play such games like GTA, while it's a crime to include a nude child character in a game.

[palpablenotions]

 

 

 

I think the difference is that you can have near violent actions in play that do cross the line into murder.

 

Is painball simulated murder? Kids playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians with toy guns or fingers? The ability of a well adjusted person to separate play, make believe, imagination or game from real life with consequences is what leads to children growing into adults. As long as it is all done in fun and there are no consequences (as the person is not murdered, or the murder victim is not real) a healthy, balanced individual can participate.

 

Sex with children however is not the same thing at all. There isn't a similarity to anything a well adjusted adult would do.  While some countries do allow for simulated sex under the theory that the people are better off sated with the imaginary and not real children, there is the tacit admission that the activity is not something that would be allowed otherwise.

 

The moral judgement is that normal people can enjoy fake rampages, even fake rapes.  Normal people cannot enjoy sex with children, rape or not, primarily because children are not developed to the point of being attractive in a sexual way to normal adults. Any who would "find that their fetish" demonstrate a deviancy society does not yet accept.

 

I have to differ, as I can't really see how sexually abusing pixelated children has bigger risk of making that person a real pedophile than killing pixelated adults would make him a real life serial killer.

 

Making an actual child pornography could be a different matter, because it involves real children who might not have enough judgement about the situation. But in case of artistic depiction, I doubt there's any significant differences to make them more dangerous than other similar cases.

 

And I would hesitate to call that specific fetish as 'abnormal'. I normally don't watch scat porns, but I don't think I have any right to call those who do as 'abnormal', while I can assert that putting an iron collar on girl's neck, which theme I personally enjoy, to be something perfectly normal and safe.

 

Claiming that normal people can enjoy fake rapes, but can't enjoy sex with children sounds a bit arbitrary to me, especially when considering people usually married well under 18 in many different cultures in the past.

 

So, if we insist having sexual fantasies for anyone under 18 is something inherently depraved, then perhaps we can say that our ancestors were all depraved people because they didn't think it to be immoral to marry a child in today's standard.

 

I guess that 'today's standard' is the keyword here, as I believe it's something determined by social and cultural norm of that specific age, rather than something inherent in human nature that we should abhor having sexual fantasies about children.

 

And if it's just an arbitrary convention, I think it's very well to question the validity of its logic, especially when it doesn't really care if people fantasizing about murdering other people for fun, while taking a serious offense at seeing even a artistic depiction of children without clothes.

 

 

Your claim that abusing pixels would make someone something is a strawman, unless you can find someone who would not enjoy having sex with a real child but does with a fake one.

 

Playing video games doesn't make people serial killers either. The serial killers that played games were already lacking the empathy and self control that keeps people from killing each other.

 

Fetishes are, literally, not normal. If they were desires held by a large majority of people they wouldn't be fetishes. Some are seen as harmless and either accepted by society or permitted and ignored or not accepted and the practitioners shunned or otherwise driven underground (or arrested and jailed). Scat doesn't arrouse most people, nylons arouse a few. BDSM in some of its many flavors has elements of consent that would cross the line into rape, were the consent not given ahead of time. I can't say I understand the attractiveness of it either, but if both parties are consenting, mature adults then it just falls into the many other fetishes present but not common in society.

 

Prepubescent children (and what I meant by child, and not teens) on the other hand are not physically ready for sex. Those still legally defined as children but who may be physically ready for sex are only not considered mentally ready. The legal age of maturity has changed throughout history and when cultures consider females as property and not having the capacity of legal majority, and the need for childbearing was paramount, marriage at 12 was possible, sometimes common.  This is a legal matter however, and I would bet a lot of those were not sexually attractive to their husbands at that age and it was purely a reproductive matter. 

 

"Today's Standards" is a large part of this, as recently as 50 years ago teenage females were not commonly garbed in the sexually suggestive ways they are now, advertising their biological readiness. That the inverse is true mentally and they are less prepared for the consequences and less adult in mind isn't really applicable to this conversation. The attractiveness to the mostly developed body is, I would suggest, natural and suggestive of a healthy mind. Sexual attractiveness to a body not ready is suggestive of an unhealthy mind and this is what society currently shuns and criminalizes. I am not sure that mindset ever was accepted or legal.

 

Shota and loli I am not familiar with enough to have a well thought opinion. What people find attractive does very greatly by culture and general population makeup, and (greatly stereotyping here) a shorter, less physically endowed ethnic group might be more prone to finding such still attractive where an entirely different group would not. There is also the question whether such artistic depictions are modeled more for the child or the teen. Child shota would fall into my "unhealthy mind" category while "teen shota" are merely illegal, currently, in many cultures.

 

Laws, ethics and morals have not always, or perhaps often, covered the same territory.

 

Biological children however should not be attractive to mature, and maybe not immature, others.  I might be misinformed, I might be uninformed, but while I've heard of homosexuals faking attraction to fit in, and bisexuals being attracted to both sexes, I haven't heard of a pedophile attracted to both children and non-children. It might be that any that are can resist their attraction to children and not get caught.

 

... and this might have gotten too long and stopped making sense.

 

 

I would just like to point out that according to a study done by Cornell, entitled Street Harassment: the Largest International Cross-Cultural Study, around the world in 2014, 13 out of 100 girls reported their first sexual harassment incident as occurring prior to age 10. Only 16% reported it as happening at 17+ years old. That means 84% of the world's women are harassed for the first time prior to age 17.

 

There was also an informal study that asked women when they first noticed men looking at them. I can't find it now, of course, to quote the actual stats, but something like 20-33% of the women that responded said they first noticed men checking them out when they were 8.

 

The definition of regular means happening with some frequency. Same sex attraction isn't irregular, and the stats on that are even less, ranging from identification as 1.6 (NIHS) to 3.8 (Williams Institute) to 6.8 (online studies); to attraction and activities which averages at about 10%, so these stats show that by that same standard, while it is not socially accepted, it is still a fairly regular occurrence.

 

Let's add another statistic. According to OneinFourUSA, 9% of college men admit to acts that constitute rape. Not fantasize, but actually commit these acts. theweek.com reports 4% of the population have pedophilic urges.

 

I think that having art depicting these topics and simulations available can do one of two things, mainly. There is, of course, the idea that it could be used as a crutch to avoid real life actions. Is this realistic? I don't know, I think it's less realistic for those with rape urges considering a tenth of college men should probably be in jail for sexual assault or worse. I like to hope it could help those with real life pedophilic urges because otherwise, well. The second thing? I know for a fact survivors of rape, that was perpetrated as an adult or child, will sometimes use artistic depictions of it to help make sense of things. Would simulation help? I don't know. Maybe. There are murder/kill mods too, so it could help. (there is, of course, also the people that just attempt to make sense of sexuality in general)

 

To be clear, I'm not endorsing anything here. I'm merely stating that perhaps it's a greater evil to deprive those who need something like this, one way or the other.

[GuessWhoCame]

LoversLab has spoken:

 

As far as I know, the sex frameworks for sims games, much like those for beth games, do not allow sex with children. However, somebody with enough skill and determination would be able to circumvent those limitations, and there's little anybody can do about that.

 

Ofc, despite the rampant depravity over here on LL, we don't allow game porn involving children. It's simply too risky for a website that wants to remain online. If you ever spot any, report it to us (not the po-po, please).

 

Unless u want to debate non-existing (at LL) problems - go ahead.

And why The Author of this post don't go outdoor and bring something good to this world (donate blood to med clinic or feed the homeless) rather than wasting time in searching shit at web and then yelling "Look - a child abuse - arrest them!!!1" ??

[TheGreyOne]

We're either talking past each other or I am not making points clearly enough.

 

Serial killers are not the only ones playing murdering video games. Are there any non-pedophiles enjoying pedophilia in games?

 

Well I personally am into bestiality hentai and bestiality in games but am pretty disgusted by the real deal. Obviously I can only speak for myself here and not on the subject at hand, but still take it for what you think it's worth. Fantasy and reality are two very different things.

[Warren Zevon]

You absolutely did the right thing in reporting those freaks to the police. You can say "fantasy and reality are two different things" as much as you want, but showing that you have those sorts of fantasies means that you are a danger to children in the real world, and the police - at the very least - should be aware of you. I have no tolerance for crimes against children, and while I don't go as far as getting the police involved, I make sure to report posts looking for that kind of stuff to the mods as soon as they crop up.

[mike24]

Sex with childrens is  repulsive, fantasy or not... simply repulsive!!     

[billyms100]

LoversLab has spoken:

 

As far as I know, the sex frameworks for sims games, much like those for beth games, do not allow sex with children. However, somebody with enough skill and determination would be able to circumvent those limitations, and there's little anybody can do about that.

 

Ofc, despite the rampant depravity over here on LL, we don't allow game porn involving children. It's simply too risky for a website that wants to remain online. If you ever spot any, report it to us (not the po-po, please).

Unless u want to debate non-existing (at LL) problems - go ahead.

And why The Author of this post don't go outdoor and bring something good to this world (donate blood to med clinic or feed the homeless) rather than wasting time in searching shit at web and then yelling "Look - a child abuse - arrest them!!!1" ??

It's not like I was looking for it. But if I happen to come across child sexual abuse images, I will report them if the site creators are allowing it. Why is that so offensive to you?

 

By the way, I never said that there were any on LL.

[Slaves of Tamriel]

Sex with childrens is  repulsive, fantasy or not... simply repulsive!!     

 

Personally, I find gay or scat themed porns rather repulsive and I think it's perfectly fine to say such things.

 

It's because saying I don't like such and such fantasies are not the same thing with saying that I detest those who do. So, I understand that those scat porns or gay porns are just some different kind of sexual preferences, not 'wrong' or 'immoral' ones, so I don't have the slightest reason why I should detest those who have such fantasies, or why those subjects should be labeled 'immoral' for everyone.

 

As people deserve their right to call certain type of fantasies as 'repulsive', I find what you wrote as perfectly sensible expression of your own personal preferences or morality.

 

But I also hope that it doesn't read as if it's something inherently bad, unlike any other sexual fantasies so every one should feel repulsive about it, and we should ban any contents pertaining to such a subject, because I can't simply find any reasonable arguments to support such a claim.

 

If someone claims that we should censor any kind of fantasies which in real life would be immoral or criminal, then I can respect that, even though I strongly oppose the idea, because I value freedom of speech and of artistic expression much more than such dubious claim on associations between violent video games and the crime rate, and etc.

 

But if someone says that it's ok to murder innocent people in a video game, but it's an offense of the gravest kind to expose naked body of children in the same media, I have to ask some justification for such a claim because that doesn't really make any sense to me.

[Choppytehbear]

Quite an interesting debate this post turned into. A few things that popped into my head while reading though.

1. When studies reference "children" when in relation to pedophillia, many include post-pubescent 'children' smashed in with the stats. Pedophillia is is sexual attraction to PRE-pubescent children, meaning that a 14 year old girl would not turn them on. to use a Skyrim example, a pedophille would find Braith attractive, as opposed to Braith from this mod nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/39532/

 

2. The view of it from an artistic lense is quite interesting. 'Naked' children have been present in art for centuries. just look at this old painting:

 

 

 

 

That is by all definition a naked child right? Yet it is considered a beautiful work of art, not something depraved and immoral. I have even seen in movies on Netflix a child (I'm guessing around 6, but i'm terrible at guessing ages) taking a bath naked, top out of the water.

Please don't ban me LL admin, it's a real painting, not meaning anything sexual here, just for reference.

Of course, what the main topic is talking about is sexual in nature, so this point doesn't help all that much, but I decided to thrown in my 2 cents.

 

 

 

P.S. I am wondering if Warren has heard of Shad...

[Shoshana]

Sex with childrens is  repulsive, fantasy or not... simply repulsive!!     

 

I agree !!  Sickening it is.

 

Sho'

[DickTracy]

If it keeps pedophiles off the streets and away from real children then I see no harm in it. At least no real children are being abused and psychologically scarred for life.