Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
Can you please use words by their meaning?
Also I’ll have to be blunt, but - every human has their own sexuality, with their own level of “drive”, so to say, and their dreams.
And it’s absolutely normal to dream of other people. Including sexually. Including those who don’t like you. Not only men do that, too. There are no thought crimes.
So talking about that being easier or harder you are not making any argument at all.
However. As I said elsewhere, the actions that really harm people should be classified legally and addressed. Like sharing such stuff. But not as making child pornography because it’s not, and not like sexual exploitation because it’s not.
It’s just that your few posts I’ve seen in this thread seem to say that certain kinds of thought should be illegal, and that’s absolute bullshit. And laws shouldn’t be made based on such emotions.
“thought crime”? And you have the balls to talk about using words “by their meaning”?This is a solid action with a product to show for it, not a thought, which happens to impact someone’s life negatively without their consent, with potentially devastating consequences for the victim.
So, can you please use words by their meaning?Edit: I jumped the gun when I read “thought crime”, effectively disregarding the context. As such, I’m scratching the parts of my comment that don’t apply, and leaving the ones that do apply (not necessarily to the post I was replying to, but to the whole thread).
The author of those comments wrote a few times what in their opinion happens in the heads of others and how that should be prevented or something.
Can you please stop interpreting my words exactly the way you like? That’s not worth a gram of horse shit.
Yes I can, moreso after your clarification. I must have misread it the first time. Sorry.
Sorry for my tone too, I get dysphoric-defensive very easily (as have been illustrated).
I don’t know where you’re getting this “thought crime” stuff. They’re talking about boys distributing deepfake nudes of their classmates. They’re not talking about individuals fantasizing in the privacy of their own homes. You have to read all of the words in the sentences, my friend.