Spread of sexual deepfake images created by generative AI growing in Japan

I applaud your optimism

They could still be sarcastic.... Beware!
- That's impossible because there is no tag. When you see a statement on the internet you need to automatically assume the poster truly believes it or else you open the door to the intolerant.

Or how about just adults.

Adult Adults or Pubescent Adults? Because that sounds like you want a lower bar to clear? Japan is one of many nations following Romeo and Juliet laws which protect minors age 14 to 18 and pre-existing relationships from persecution by the law, but personally I think production of all sub-18 pornographic imagery should be banned and all gratuitous imagery should be heavily restricted.
- Adults. Where I am from the word adult only has one meaning. An adult is a person of 18 years of age at the very least.
  You said "mature looking" for which a 16 year old person might qualify depending on the exact interpretation which is not ok. It doesn't matter what they look like, it matters whether they are an adult or not. Going for looks reminds me of creeps going "he/she is so mature for his/her age". That is not ok.
  
  We're talking about fictional women and artwork, their physical age is measured in seconds. In my language Woman means to say Adult Female, as opposed to Girl.
  
  Oh right. My mistake. I guess when it comes to art then anything that isn't obviously a child is technically legal, if distasteful and morally more than questionable. At least that is the legal situation in most countries.
  My objective is the minimisation of harm. If someone uses artwork and that means that they will never touch an underage person then that is a good thing even though I may not like it.
  
  My objective is the minimisation of harm. If someone uses artwork and that means that they will never touch an underage person then that is a good thing even though I may not like it.
  I have never understood why we persecute and prosecute seemingly without taking this into account at all and treat someone with pedophile urges who never acted on them the same way as we treat someone who looked at drawn images and both of those the same was as someone who looks at actual images of real children being abused or someone who actively abuses children.
  If anything we should try to offer the first two help in their attempts to never let their urges affect any real, existing children.
  However a lot of the time it feels more like our society is designed to achieve the opposite in its active hostility to people who want to live their lives largely in places where they won't encounter children.
  
  Sometimes when you create leeway or ambiguity, the worse kinds of people will use it to stress the limits and do unimaginable harm. For example, legalizing a child pornography production and collection would legalize the company that profits off of child pornography and emboldens those with pedophilic urges.
  Better to make it illegal and let the judge and jury decide the severity of punishment.
  
  But sometimes when you leave people alone with their struggles they end up losing against those urges.
  And nobody said that the production of child pornography should be legalized, though even talking about this reveals that we apparently don't make a linguistic distinction between material that essentially requires sexual abuse of children to produce and material that requires nothing more than some art supplies and artistic skill. That is the part that I consider disgusting, that we apparently dislike it so much that we forget all about the actual harm the production of some of it does to actual children in our efforts to use euphemistic language to avoid thinking about it too much. It feels like the emotional comfort of those taking part in the public discourse about it is more important than actually solving the problem for the victims.
  
  I don't think you correctly parsed my statement at all tbh. I was saying optics is the only indication of age in these images, they cannot literally be 18 if they don't exist.
  So if they look adult they are.

Nothing like subtle racism. I wonder what kind of boots the woman will be wearing? Perhaps tasty ones?

Don't let fear of being "racist" keep you from calling a spade a spade. Japan has a track record when it comes to issues such as these.
- "Never"? This is literally the only comment of mine you've ever seen 😂 bro, don't tell me there's not pleeenty of criticism of the Catholic church going around. By far the most scorned religious institution in the West.
  Now what does this have to do with criticism of a pervasive issue in Japanese culture? Do we have to attach a list of every problematic institution every time criticism is given, or do you just have a weak ass mental? Bring an argument rather than ad hominem and we might actually have something relevant to talk about. Otherwise you're just a tosser.
  
  Huh? I'm not even from the UK or a royalist 😂 what is up with your stupid assumptions? Go touch some grass fam
There is nothing racist about this. It was debated in Japan in parliament and in courts in 1970, 2003, 2009, 2011, 2013, etc. Both UNICEFF and the US State Department have made public statements and reports about the poor state of child gratuity and smut originating from Japan and of crimes against children in general with the idol industry. In a public opinion poll 86% of Japanese respondents said they needed tighter restrictions on manga and anime obscenity involving minors.
The worst kind of people are you who ignore real problems with the world and society under the false pretense of fairness. If you really treated them fairly you would hold them to the same standard as everybody else.