5 minutes after the Vatican presented her, there was already porn. Some say even earlier.
rule 34
The Vatican is angry. They lost their porn mascot. Because, come on, it was always meant to attract vulnerable children to priests.
Googling “Luce porn” immediately surfaced sites where people are posting what appears to be handmade images of exactly that (click at your own risk), but searching Civitai specifically, a site which makes AI-generating porn of anyone and anything extremely easy, turned up the real motherlode.
I gotta say, the choice to write this article itself is questionable. It’s obvious this stuff would exist to anyone familiar with the internet, but describing the images in lurid detail and saying exactly how to get them complete with direct links, kinda sus.
That mascot is a child. Please don’t make porn of fictional children even if you disagree with the politics or religion of that fictional child you’re making porn out of. Child porn is a bad thing
If she’s drawn as an adult like the pucture used for the pist I don’t think it would be a problem anymore, you can’t really lock down a fictional character’s age it just comes down to features their drawn with and I guess if someone feels the need to go out of thier way to give an age
Why do you hate punctuation and just basic grammar?
don’t know I just always hated it since elementary school, I want to see grammarly removed from the face of the earth and would pay good money to make sure no one takes their place not even joking about that
Dude, she isn’t real.
Doesn’t matter. It is a depiction of a child. The “Oh it’s actually a 10 billion year old dragon, she just looks and acts like she’s 8” is not a credible defense. And don’t pull “that’s not what I said or am implying”, regardless it’s an image of a child no matter how you try spinning it, real or not. CP is CP.
I’m not going to come up with a justification either way because really I don’t care, but it’s probably not a good idea to label everything as CP, unless it actually is.
I’m not giving the Chinese myth dragon “defence”. She’s not real. Full stop. It’s okay if you don’t like it
Is it a child? What age are they? I couldn’t find it anywhere. Looking at the official image it’s hard to say. She could be 7 or 30. The Internet is going to Internet.
But this “CP is CP” thing is a little odd. I mean without knowing her age you’re just assuming. The C in CP is child, are they a child or are you just upset that you think they kinda look like one? It’s also way weird, she’s not real. Do you get upset about anime dogs being killed? Do you get upset about violence in anime? I mean what if it is some old being in a young body? Isn’t CP wrong because they don’t know better and are helpless victims to the F’d up thing. That’s not the case here. I’m honestly just confused.
It is a depiction of a child.
Your implying, that so long as information can’t be validated and the image can’t be verified as a real person it’s ok. Cool, all you need is a filter and CP is fine!? Pictures of hate crimes are cool because it’s just a picture?
What I find weird is the number of people in Lemmy who are trying to define a grey line when it’s CP and when it’s not. Reddit had a very real problem with CP and starting to think Lemmy very much does.
Is it? You keep saying it’s a child, I’m trying to stay objective, is it? Pictures of real hate crimes are bad. But plenty of shows and movies depict hate crimes and you don’t seem to be fighting that fight, seems like inconsistent morals.
Yes yes, I get it, you’re against CP, I am too. My point is this isn’t CP, this isn’t a child. This is a make believe spiritual being that you think looks like a child. Hell in the pic shown she clearly isn’t a child. I mean if you take a kid and draw a picture of what you think they’d look like as an adult is that CP? The pic isn’t a child. I mean, honest question.
Child porn is a bad thing
Tell that to the priests
She is really a 2,000 year old
dragonchild of god so it’s totally ok.-some priest
This is not child porn.
Please define child porn.
Edit: becauae y’all seem to wanna put words in my mouth: I also think that sexualized cartoons of children is bad. I never said otherwise. I’m referring to the US federal legal definition.
The feds define it as:
Any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old
Visual depiction includes cartoons.
Don’t argue with me, call the feds and debate it with them. Maybe give them your hard drive, too. That’s probably better for everyone.
“Thanks for calling the FBI, how may I direct your call?”
“I like to discuss what actually constitutes child pornography and how to rectify the laws that are causing my beautiful sensual artwork to be unfairly maligned on the internet.”
“I couldn’t agree more. What’s your home address, we’d love to hear your complaint in person”
No it absolutely does fucking not include cartoons. (Edit: at least in the US)
And yes, even if it’s of a real person/child. Apparently they’re working on changing that.
Which seems fine in spirit, but we don’t really want the letter of the law making something like this
O/-<
illegal
