UPDATE: I have regrettably decided to disable comments on this stamp. The only comments it's getting are from one person who makes a new sockpuppet account every week to comment the same crap I've already debunked. DA is dead otherwise so there's no reason to leave it open and have to keep blocking him.

The fact that this stamp has any backlash at all should make anyone lose all faith in humanity.

I've been observing some drama within some people I watch involving what exactly counts as child porn and pedophilia. I've seen some people with a pretty level head on their shoulders, but I've also seen a few who think there's nothing at all wrong with depicting underaged characters in sexual situations "as long as it's just a drawing and the characters are fictional". As if there's a difference.

Is there a difference?

You're still creating, looking at, being aroused by, and getting yourself off to, the figures of children. Child bodies. You're sexually attracted to child bodies. You are a pedophile.

But is it really illegal? YES.

According to THE Child Pornography Law:

"Any depiction of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct may be considered child pornography. This can include photographs, digital images, computer-generated images, drawings, videos, or animations, among others."

18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children:

(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—                    

(1)                        

• (A)    depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and 
  
• (B)    is obscene; or                                                                

(2)                      

•   (A)    depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and  
  
•    (B)    lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;  or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.                                

(b)Additional Offenses.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—                    

(1)                  

•      (A)        depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and                       
  
• (B)      is obscene; or                                                                

(2)                        

• (A)   depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and                                                
• (B)   lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.                                

(C) Nonrequired Element of Offense.  It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/tex…

There may even be a case against the "Aged Up" argument:
"This also applies if the person in the depiction is actually an adult but appears to be a minor. Moreover, altering an image or video so that it appears to depict a minor may also be child pornography (for example, editing the face of a minor onto the nude body of an adult in an image or video)." Which is all aging up is: Putting a child into an adult body just so you can "legally" sexualize them.
- www.hg.org/child-pornography.h…

"Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, sections 62-68 made it a criminal offence to be in possession of “prohibited images” of children. This is defined closely to require that the image is first grossly offensive and obscene, and pornographic for purposes of sexual arousal. It also requires that the focus is principally on the child’s genitals and sexual regions, or includes one of various sexual acts either with the child or in the presence of the child. It also covers images that depict sexual activity in the presence of or between children and an animal, whether dead, alive, or imaginary.

The law covers still and moving images, and can include cartoons, drawings, and manga-style images.
- theconversation.com/when-a-dra…

Even DeviantArt has rules against uploading artwork of sexualized minors, even fictional, even under a mature filter:

Underage models

We cannot allow any nude works featuring individuals under the age of 18, nor may the works depict these individuals in a 'sexually driven' manner such as posing in lingerie or displaying a sexually suggestive or provocative pose.

This prohibition is for legal reasons; the laws in the United States are the governing laws in regards to all submissions regardless of the deviant's country of origin. Photographs which are suspected of depicting a minor in this manner will be temporarily suspended from public view and proper legal documentation (as outlined above) will be demanded while photographs which clearly depict a minor (including toddlers, preteens, and teenagers) in this manner will be removed without notice.

Submissions of a non- photographic nature which clearly depict a minor, fictional character or otherwise, either nude or in a sexually driven manner will be removed and deleted without notice as they come to the attention of the staff."

about.deviantart.com/policy/et…

Debunking the common points against this stamp:

1. "This is just "violent video game" argument" The difference here is that the average gamer isn't suffering from some uncontrollable urge to murder and has to kill characters in violent games in order to relieve themselves or get pleasure from murdering. 

However, someone who watches porn does it ONLY for the sake of getting off to it. Nobody watches porn "Just because it's fun to watch" or "just to play a game", they watch it ONLY for the sexual gratification. That's the very DEFINITION of porn. Anyone who goes out looking for porn of children, real or fake, they are a pedophile because they seek out sexual gratification from children.

2. "That law only applies to drawings of REAL children!" In WHAT situation has that ever happened anywhere? Since when does someone see a random person on the street and think "I like that person, I'm going to go home right now and draw hentai of that real, living person for me and others to get off to"? With the exception of maybe celebrities, this is not a thing people do unless you're a clinically insane, creepy individual. Why would that even need to be mentioned in a law with such priority if it only applied to those people?

For that matter, what IF someone drew porn of a real child? By your logic, how would a drawing of a real child be personally harming them? Unless the person was an old-school painter who had to set up the scene in real life in order to draw it, they're only using their imagination and never put the child in harm's way, right? Or for example what if a pedophile downloaded a photo of some random kid and photoshopped them into a sexual situation? Again by your logic, the real child in the photo was never harmed and it's "fictional" and "just art". Then how does the law apply?

Hentai (drawn/animated porn) is just as much considered porn as real photos and videos, even when it's of fictional characters, so why is it different for images of children? If real photos are wrong, then artwork is also wrong. If not, then only real pornographic photos of normal adults should be marked as NSFW and pornographic artwork should have no filter whatsoever and be plastered for the world (children, professional environments, people who don't want to see it) to see and they can't do anything about it because it's just a drawing, and it's a fictional character.

3. "But fictional child porn helps and protects real children by giving pedophiles an outlet!" First of all, what? Second: Does it help drug addicts to give them more drugs? Does it help alcoholics to give them more alcohol? Does giving any addict more of whatever they're addicted to ever help or cure their addiction? Letting pedophiles have access to child porn is not going to help them or stop them. They're still going to rape and molest children and desire it whether their porn is real or fake. Fake child porn is not going to stop them. In fact, fake child porn is just as much a part of the porn industry, of which there is demand for. Fake child porn keeps the real child porn industry and demand alive.

Bottom line is, if you are attracted to the bodies and figures of children, let alone actively seek out porn of them, you ARE a pedophile. There is no way around it.

Pedophiles do need help. But they're not going to change if you give them what they want.

There are NO "harmless" pedophiles.