we assume this needs to be spoilered
to get it out of the way:
so like, the argument we hear is that watching it supposedly makes ppl more likely to start watching real material (which is made by harming and exploiting children, and is obvsly bad because of that) or harming kids irl. supposedly there are studies that point to that being the case, and other studies that point to that not being the case. personally we dont rly buy that, because it just sounds like the same exact argument ppl used/use to say that “violent video games” or BDSM or whatever would do the same, or even like the old “weed is a gateway drug” stuff that also had a number of (extremely flawed) studies to “prove” it. what exactly makes this different from any of that other than just feeling more yucky and “wrong”? are there other arguments, are we missing something?
we dont personally watch that stuff tbc (tho if u already think were a filthy pedophile for even asking all of this theres no way were gonna get u to change ur mind lbr) but we dont want to base our feelings on this on just “that feels gross therefore its bad”, we all know where that logic leads, and were struggling to come up with a legitimate reason
Edit: ty for the replies everyone 
Strongest argument against is that they’re used in literal actual grooming.
There are many many court cases where this content has been used by a pedophile to show it to the kids, to normalise it, to get the kids to see it as a fun act from the secret manga cartoons they share with uncle.
It IS used in literal actual acts of abuse to children. The people claiming it’s harmless because it does not actually abuse a child like video/photo pornography are simply wrong.
Do you have examples of this?
CONTENT WARNING GRAPHIC EXPLANATIONS OF ACTUAL CASES
I genuinely don’t recommend reading cases. They will explicitly describe acts and you should seriously consider not clicking on these links or reading the content in them if you think that will ruin your day.
spoiler
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2025/a25a0236.html?__cf_chl_f_tk=QZpqvLI9vYuZskkao5BdRTRG0LnjMIQNcC6WfLoJcd8-1783300066-1.0.1.1-YzK9bj.oUkCk4rlaaLzgBEDzAbAeyw_Ic527tmyOzfw
Multiple counts of “aggravated child molestation”.
Showed the child pornographic material.
Case explicitly mentions search history involving “japanese animation”.
https://law.justia.com/cases/maine/supreme-court/1982/442-a-2d-537-0.html
Case involves use of “printed cartoon” to introduce concepts of sexuality to a child
If you’re looking for this stuff the term the courts use a lot is “facilitation tool” or “grooming tool”. They almost always use the word cartoon and do not often mention japanese or anime or animation or any of the common phrases you might hear online.
The process of grooming is pretty well documented though. Sometimes it’s real CSAM, sometimes it’s this “cartoon” content as they describe it. The use of the content is to slowly escalate the child through a process of sexualisation, normalising the behaviour over time, starting with clothed content and moving up to naked and then sexual acts. Once an interest has been generated in the child transitioning to actual acts with them is then the next move.
I could probably dig through and pull out dozens of similar examples but I’ve damaged my psyche enough to make my point I think.
I actually think that this loli content is more dangerous in the cases of grooming than the actual child porn content because cartoons are much more “fun” for a child than the real content is.
First case mentions search history on a phone for “pastel kawaii anime girl,”“[a]nime porn,”and“furry porn", specifically mentions that what the offender showed the victim were DVDs and online videos of live-action adult actors in schoolgirl fantasy material. This is not an example of what you’re talking about.
Second case mentions a “cartoon picture from a dirty book”, considering the lack of any further description and the fact that this is from the US in 1982 I’m thinking it’s more likely to be Playboy than anything close to what we’re discussing here. Also not particularly good evidence for what you’re claiming.
Neither of these had any particularly explicit descriptions of any acts either, very cut and dry legal descriptions. If I’m being honest I don’t think you actually read either of these and I don’t believe that there are dozens of similar examples.
Oh you’re actually here to defend the cartoon child porn, I made a mistake of treating you like a normal human being here in good-faith.
Hopefully someone hits you with a brick.
Lol thought so, you’re completely full of shit and you know it
Your reaction to a literal example of cartoons being used in the grooming process was “it’s probably not JAPANESE cartoons though”. Like the country of origin of the cartoons even matters. That’s not stipulated in court cases because it’s irrelevant, they all just say cartoons because that’s what they are.
You are a pedophile. Seek help.