Edit: WE DON’T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.

    • SausageWallet@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      5 hours ago

      I used to subscribe to r/rule34 for a laugh but somewhere along the line it went from being silly to being an excuse to make underage cartoon characters into porn. So this list doesn’t surprise me.

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    271·
    20 hours ago

    Isn’t it obvious?

    Drawing porn of animated characters looks close to the real drawing.

    Also, all those are from sitcoms that teenagers watch, like no duhhh

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    161·
    1 day ago

    Haha what kind of degenerate do you have to be to find any of these characters hot enou-

    Amy Wong

    We shouldn’t judge others so harshly…

  • MissJinx@lemmy.world
    43·
    24 hours ago

    Honest question since i’m not a guy: When you guys are masturbating to Lisa Simpson do you think.you are fucking her in 3D or 2D? Are you a simpson character or is she a yellow little girl? Just trying to.understand your minds

    Regardless, this is very fucked up, but I’m curious anyway

  • Octavusss@lemm.eeEnglish
    1232·
    1 day ago

    |>11 Maggie Simpson

    This has to be bots, please. Someone has to be just fucking around. This can’t be real.

    • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 hours ago

      Elon Musk is #26 and Tracer is #27. So there are definitely some edgelords fucking around and messing with the stats.

      • DozensOfDonner@mander.xyz
        3·
        9 hours ago

        Thanks for the effort, I should have just laughed and cringed at the memes and skip the comments, and my day would have been much better :')

    • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
      13·
      24 hours ago

      Isn’t there an episode where Maggie is grown up? Or am I thinking of Lisa?

      I choose to believe it’s the adult version

    • Kami@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      272·
      1 day ago

      I doubt you don’t know that not only this is very real, but it’s not even close to the worse rule34 and similar have to offer.

      • Octavusss@lemm.eeEnglish
        22·
        1 day ago

        No I don’t know and I didn’t want to know. I purposely avoid this shit.

        • Zwiebel@feddit.orgEnglish
          8·
          23 hours ago

          There’s a lot of funny shit out there. Like “personality_excretion”. It’s such a wild concept that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but you gotta acknowledge the creativity

    • Kaboom@reddthat.com
      131·
      1 day ago

      Probably long form comics that have Maggie in the intro panel doing nothing. Or so I’m choosing to believe.

  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    873·
    1 day ago

    The fraction of teenage/underage girls on that list is too damn high (hell, Louise is 9)

    • toddestan@lemm.ee
      3·
      9 hours ago

      If it makes you feel any better, from a quick scan through some of the images the vast majority of them at least seem depict the characters as older and grown up.

    • Zwiebel@feddit.orgEnglish
      519·
      23 hours ago

      Controversial opinion: If killing npcs in video games is fine and shouldn’t land you in prison for murder, because they are fictional and not real people, then porn of “underage” fictional characters is also fine and shouldn’t be illegal.

      Finding something disgusting is not a proper reason to make something illegal. The only relevant aspect is whether it causes harm to others or not.

      • Csam harms children -> should be illegal and punished
      • fictional drawings don’t harm anyone bevause no actual people involved -> should be legal
      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        2·
        6 hours ago

        In the UK it doesn’t matter if its a photo of a real person or not, porn that depicts a child is illegal.

        Tbh I think with the use of AI at this point this might be a pretty good law to have. “It was AI generated” is not a defence. Realistically if you are doing it for yourself no one will find out so there is some kind of argument as to it being harmless, but when you start doing other things with those images such as using them for blackmail the police should be able to use that as sufficient evidence to charge you.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        284·
        23 hours ago

        I’m not talking about legal judgement (I practically never do) and I’m not even talking bout legit PDF files.

        It’s just disgusting that rule 34 of literal children scores this high.

      • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        144·
        23 hours ago

        Legality and morality don’t necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that’s something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.

        • Zwiebel@feddit.orgEnglish
          155·
          23 hours ago

          to get off to drawings of children

          They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.

          what’s the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a “fictional character” that looks like said child?

          That’s my whole point, it makes all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn’t exist.

          That’s why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways) Then again that’s why we watch fictional shows in the first place

          I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
          (Of course you are entitled to your feelings)

          • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            55·
            21 hours ago

            I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They’re interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what’s the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it’s unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the “OK” side of the line isn’t immoral.

            • Zwiebel@feddit.orgEnglish
              63·
              19 hours ago

              I have always felt the “actually she’s 1000 years old and just looks like a child” argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous

              I haven’t made that argument

              • erin (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                71·
                17 hours ago

                It’s the same argument, that the character only looks like a child, but isn’t. I chose a hyperbolic example for emphasis, but it’s the same argument. It looks like a child. That’s the point.

      • Denjin@lemmings.world
        610·
        23 hours ago

        I’m normally an anti-slippery slope person but there’s a definite escalatory nature to how paedophiles operate, it’s easy to see how images of fictional children can evolve into images of actual children.

        • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
          252·
          21 hours ago

          How is this argument different than the “video games cause violence” argument?

          • Gloomy@mander.xyz
            36·
            20 hours ago

            The “video games cause violence” argument is wrong, because the vast majority of gamers don’t try to use games as a substitute action for violent behaviour.

            But there are of cause at least some mass murderers and school shooters, that have played violent games in order to fulfill their violent phantasies, couldn’t do so in a long term and murdered real people instead.

            Same goes with pedophiles. They want to fuck a child, use fictional characters to fulfill the phanstasy, get used to it and then escalate to pictures of real children and eventually real children.

            • SpongyAneurism@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              4·
              5 hours ago

              Do you have any real-world or professional experience with people suffering from pedophilia?

              I don’t, but I doubt that stance as being unfairly projecting some idea of how things have to work on those people.

              I for one can jerk off to the weirdest porn fantasy things, from the usual thinly-veiled step-siblings trope to rape play, weird power dynamics or tentacle porn (depictions of children not among them, I feel I have to mention that explicitly here), but I don’t have any desire to experience any of that in real life, because I absolutely know it would be wrong.

              I don’t see why that should neccessarily be different for them.

              • Gloomy@mander.xyz
                1·
                1 hour ago

                Do you have any real-world or professional experience with people suffering from pedophilia?

                I have been schooled on pedophilia in a professional context, during my undergrad and in a work-context. Yet I have not worked with pedophiles directly, nor have I had any contact to one, that I would be aware of.

                Looking at the science both of our positions are reflected. As with so many things the answer is not a simple “yes” or “no”.

                If you want to take a bit of a deep dive, I recoment this study from 2023.

                It looked at both of our positions: FSM (Fantasy Sexual Material) leads to real sexual violence against children vs. FSM reduces the risk of said practice.

                Here is their summary of my position (FSM leads to sexual violence against children):

                When applying the motivation-facilitation model to the context of FSM use, it can be theorized as to why, for a subset of users, engaging with such material could become problematic and increase the likelihood of committing a child sexual offense (whether that be offline or online), while for others this is not the case. As pedohebephilia is thought to be a motivating factor towards sexual offending in Seto’s model [21], engaging with FSM relating to children could heighten sexual arousal and therefore act as a facilitator to increase offending likelihood. With abstinence from masturbation being self-reported as a risk-management technique by some people who are attracted to children [16], this is a recognized idea by some members of the community. Over time, engaging in CSEM (especially forms such as child-like sex dolls, which offer a more realistic sexual experience) may contribute to the development of offence-supportive beliefs and the adoption of implicit theories about the acceptability of engaging in sexual activity with children (or child-like targets). The combination of enhanced sexual arousal to children (a potential motivator of offending), coupled with the development of permission-giving beliefs (facilitators of offending), may subsequently increase the risk of abuse being committed by somebody with attractions to children.

                Here they are summarising your position, as far as I understand it (FSM helps to prevent sexual child abuse):

                Alternatively, FSM use could be seen as beneficial by the motivation-facilitation model and instead reduce the likelihood of offending. Rather than heightening arousal, FSM could act as a safe sexual outlet that allows for a feeling of release and sense of catharsis [84], which could reduce a motivation to seek out real children as a sexual partner. Engaging with FSM also avoids the problematic suppression of sexual interests, with such suppression being linked to increases in self-perceived risks for offending among those with attractions to children [15]. In contrast to Stevens and Wood [16], Houtepen and colleagues reported that engagement in masturbatory fantasies was a common coping mechanism used by some people experiencing attractions to children, avoiding the need to access CSEM due to an alternative outlet being identified [3•].

                They conclude, basicly, that more research is needed:

                Given the present lack of understanding of FSM and how they are used, it is important to identify the factors associated with use and whether they are risk-enhancing or risk-reducing (i.e., protective). This knowledge could be beneficial to clinicians in the search for more effective methods to support people who are attracted to children when they are seeking help to manage their sexual interests. Nonetheless, Seto’s motivation-facilitation model provides a theoretical framework for thinking about this topic in a more nuanced way [21].

                So, there we are. A long post to say maybe.

                I suppose both of our positions might be viable and it can’t be said yet, under what circumstances each one of us might be right.

          • Denjin@lemmings.world
            25·
            20 hours ago

            Because as I said, people with an interest in CSAM tend to escalate in their behaviour. Most don’t jump straight into child pornography but start with less serious things like jailbait and non-sexualised images of children etc. It doesn’t take a huge leap to see the same pathway with images of fictional children.

            I’m not suggesting that everyone into this material will go on to abuse children or start to consume actual CSAM but there’s a non-zero amount of actual paedophiles who started their journey with this exact material.

            • gmtom@lemmy.world
              7·
              16 hours ago

              It’s that the same with violence, people that want to commit acts of violence may start by acting out violence in video games?

    • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      27·
      1 day ago

      Out of 11 we have:

      Maggie Simpson Lisa Simpson Louise Belcher

      And maybe Hayley Smith and Meg Griffin? Or are they 18?

      Anyways, that’s a really high proportion, like a thirdish.

    • Ibaudia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      66·
      19 hours ago

      I agree but the availability of csam on the internet (real or simulated) reduces the instances of real-world abuse so… take that as you will I guess :/

      • markovs_gun@lemmy.world
        3·
        13 hours ago

        Does it? I used to see this argument a lot on Reddit back in the early days when there were a lot more pedos on there and I don’t really buy it. Are there any actual studies on this? I feel like there have got to be better ways at managing it than that at least from a clinical standpoint

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        6·
        18 hours ago

        I’m not arguing against rule 34ing these characters.

        But I refuse to believe that the fraction of actual pedophiles on rule34 is that high such that three of the top 11 haven’t even hit puberty yet.

        I think that lots of these numbers comes from some sort of taboo breaking.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          61·
          14 hours ago

          Also there is probably some level of inflation from the characters being present even if they aren’t necessarily part of the act. IE a porn comic where Bart and Lisa are complaining about thumping, cut to Marge and Homer fucking.

          I rather like my hentai and have seen this type of thing frequently enough to say it’s semi common. Though I am not into Simpsons personally, a bit too abstract and too far away from human coloration to enjoy.

  • paultimate14@lemmy.world
    361·
    1 day ago

    What else do these all have in common?

    They all have art styles that are purposefully designed to be really cheap and easy to make. The same choices that helped these studios crank out hours upon hours of formulaic content also helps the rule 34 artists.

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      5·
      23 hours ago

      Yup. Flat colors, thick ink lines, and very little detail. The goal is for animators to be able to reproduce the art quickly and reliably, to be able to churn out dozens of seasons.

  • Kowowow@lemmy.ca
    6·
    1 day ago

    Something about all these characters that I can’t get behind, art style? personalities? I’m really not sure they all seem unappealing