Passing Thought - Dangerous hypocrites and Liars

I was reading about the 501(c)(3) organization (now a tax-exept church) called the Family Research Council, who are actually more accurately described as a right-wing hate group for their questionable and unethical practices and how they treat human sexuality as a type of pathology as a way to reconcile their religious beliefs with their political agenda.

They are a truly evil, malicious group whose sole purpose is to impose conservative views and ideals on those against their own better judgement. They are fanatical, theocratic fascists who would happily imprison those who dared deny them their presumed right to have their views approvingly acknowledged.

I lose sleep at night knowing that people like this continue to pollute the American political system, with their hatred, ignorance, and bigotry, with the sole focus on harming those they chose to take issue with, justified solely by their hatred and biased, biblical moralism.


I was reading about one of their former leaders and affiliated persons, one of whom is convicted sex offender Joshua Duggar.

Duggar was the Executive Director of a PAC called “FRC Action”, which lobbied on behalf of, and funded various socially conservative agenda items and policies.

In 2021, Duggar was charged and convicted for the receipt and possession of CSAM.
He was also a reality TV star, renowned for his unusually large family, and a household name for anyone who watched TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting show.

There were also allegations made regarding acts of molestation against his younger siblings dating as far back as the early 2000s and as recent as 2015, which caused the cancelation of aforementioned reality show.

There was also another person who was instrumental in the formation of the FRC, a man who would later go on to found the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality or “NARTH”, which was spearheaded by a Mr. George Alan Rekers. In addition to holding back the scientific understanding of homosexuality by decades, Rekers would promote scientifically questionable and ethically dubious ‘treatments’ for those men struggling to make peace with their sexual orientation, leading to the continued social and cultural rot that would claim the lives of many gay men and woman.

Rekers, unlike Mr. Duggar, wound later be found to court younger gentlemen callers, who were probably unaware of the scheisty background of the older man they were with.

Rekers, like Duggar, are two examples of the types of people I’m talking about in this thread. Those who align themselves with these types of heinous and deliberately evil organizations who shill snake oil and false hope at another person’s expense, only to align themselves with that group in private.

Or to be the supposed evil they try to paint themselves as an avid crusader against.

The FRC has had a long history of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, and equating pedophilia with child sexual abuse. Lobbying heavily against the adult entertainment industry, championing the continued prosecution and expansion of anti-obscenity laws, all in the name of preserving their iconic and idyllic American family while using child exploitation and abuse aa talking points along the way.


The Prostasia Foundation is not like these groups, obviously, but I feel like more could be done to emphasize the egregious faults in these orgs to try and elevate us further towards our own contemporaries within the CSA-prevention space.

That way we can spread our forwardthinking and expert-backed solutions and keep kids safe, as well as urge these groups to not fall victim to their emotions and attempt to equate victimless fantasy material with child sex abuse material, especially without proper reason to do so.


Another bit of hypocrisy. I told you that porn sites that ban the loli term do not ban the shota term. This is basically that:


I’m considering countering the media effects arguments with a biblical proverb: Proverbs 16:27.
Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.

Nevertheless, if it cannot be deemed evil for someone to think that an imaginary character or a doll doesn’t matter, there’s no evil to punish for.

Probably not a good strategy, since religious quotes such as the one you just gave can have a myriad of different meanings, and it’s far more likely that your appropriation of it will just go over their heads or be misinterpreted outright.


Accepting the reality that no one cares about our point of view, much less be open minded enough to listen; is a cold, hard fact that took me a little time to come to grips with. Ignorance is bliss for the majority of people. They’re so blindly stuck in their false beliefs and what the media tells them and society mandates; no one wants to be over the percieved “pedophile” line, (even though a majority of males will gawk at a hot teen or tween. Hypocrites!) lest they become ostracized. It’s so easy for them to label people and put them in line for the woodchipper without bothering to look up.


Another passing thought…

It’s patently illogical to be against laws which:

  • Proscribe criminal penalties for private and consensual non-procreative sexual conduct involving homosexual acts (sodomy)
  • Proscribe criminal penalties against abortion and abortion procedures, especially in cases of rape or incest
  • Ban the licensing of, or otherwise refuse to recognize existing marriage licenses between persons of the same sex (gay marriage)
  • Impose criminal penalties for, or otherwise censor, the contents of pornography created by and for consenting adults (adult pornography)

And also be in favor of laws which criminalize wholly fictional pornography which may appear to depict minor characters which do not exist or are not based on a real person who is a child, or child-like sex dolls.

It does not make sense to recognize the utter futility and patently dismiss the fundamentally moralist claims made against abortion or LGBT rights and also accept them as fact when the focus is on virtual/simulated child pornography (now referred to as ‘FSM’) or child-like sex dolls.

FSM, by its very definition and inception, does not involve the use of a real minor, be it the photographic depiction of their sexual abuse or exploitation or the misappropriation of their likeness or otherwise identifiable characteristics. It has no victim, and it creates none by its production or distribution. Even the SCOTUS acknowledged the futility in the arguments which sought to justify criminal prohibitions against it.

Moreover, no empirical study can conclusively link the consumption of these materials to an increased or exacerbated risk of CSA perpetration, or the consumption of actual CSAM, nor has the scientific community reached a consensus where it can affirmatively classify VCP/FSM as risk-supportive behavior, even in those who are predisposed. Rather, the more we study it, the more we begin to understand how little of a link this type of content has with actual abuse-related behaviors.

Acknowledging this, laws which seek to impose criminal penalties for the creation/possession/distribution of pornography that does not actually depict a real child are tantamount to thoughtcrime. Banning this type of content will not make children safer, nor will it lead to any positive effects. It’s just censorship backed up by raw emotion and uninformed intuition.
Such materials do not actually cause any real harm, directly or indirectly, and society is perfectly capable of coexisting with this type of material, like any niche/alternative adult content, without it causing ‘moral decay’ or otherwise promoting the sexualization or exploitation of real children, just as it has been so since 1996 and 2002.

They do not promote or otherwise actively support the market for CSAM materials. Even the SCOTUS acknowledged that in their majority opinion:

The Government next argues that its objective of eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well. Virtual images, the Government contends, are indistinguishable from real ones; they are part of the same market and are often exchanged. In this way, it is said, virtual images promote the trafficking in works produced through the exploitation of real children. The hypothesis is somewhat implausible. If virtual images were identical to illegal child pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the market by the indistinguishable substitutes.
Few pornographers would risk prosecution by abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice.

Indeed, we’ve been seeing this happen with the advent of 3D CGI content or materials, as well as drawings/cartoons and even images of petite/youthful-looking adults. They fulfill their own markets, with their own niches which all have the same effect of providing a necessary and welcome catharsis for those who would otherwise be tempted to consume CSAM.

And with the advent of AI-generated content, with the advent of materials which could be trained on actual photographs of real children, the time to step in and ensure that these technologies are not misused to generate contents which exploit real children is necessary now more than ever.

We have a very real and meaningful opportunity to eradicate the market for CSAM, or at the very least, create a large-enough dent in the demand for it that would undercut, or otherwise remove, the need to exploit or abuse real children.
This includes the omission of real children’s photographs from the datasets used to train generative AI models, as well as integration into 3DCG experiences and tools.


Woodchipper? Then respond by threatening to crucify their families. Remember. Once upon a time in China, it was considered immoral and disrespectful to get a haircut. How did this viewpoint change? The Manchurians came down and slaughtered, eradicated, and exterminated any man within the age range to grow hair (so no babies but yes, children and teens) but refused to cut it. Queue (hairstyle) - Wikipedia

First of all, I never once subscribed to the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but war makes this belief even less valid as “many” can become “few” very easily, as you can see her. Why feel depressed when you can feel hatred?

Democracy, the needs of the many outweigh the few. Translated, two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner.

1 Like

I’ve never interpreted that phrase to mean that.

The keyword here is ‘need’. Society doesn’t need to ban these types of virtual/fictional/simulated materials or outlets.

They, like adult contents (which they technically are), have serious artistic and expressive value and there lacks any necessary harm that would justify extending police powers or resources to suppress or ban it.

What society needs to do is take a moment to seriously consider what these things actually are, and hopefully come to the realization that if they genuinely care about civil liberties and actually protecting children in a rational and informed way, they’d recognize both the futility and the lack of necessity that any criminal prohibitions would entail, be it quietly or openly.

This may be an uncomfortable thing for many of them to ultimately acknowledge and accept (let alone ponder) but being able to moderate that discomfort is just part of being realistic and reasonable.


It’s all about fishing expeditions to feed the system.

You are right as it is not necessarily “need”. The base definition of democracy is the majority is right. As in 50% plus 1. It means that the WANTS of the many will outweigh the few. That’s why the US is not a “democracy”. It’s a constitutional republic. The Founding Fathers recognized that democracy can and likely would devolve into a tyranny of the majority.

1 Like

The difference between democracy and ‘tyranny of the majority’ is that democracy is, ideally, principled, and constrained to recognize the rights of the minority above the will of the majority, for it is the right of the minority that is retained by all.

Sadly, that is not democracy’s definition. In a direct democracy, the people have the direct authority to deliberate and decide legislation.

The minority is only protected by some sort of limiting rules or laws that specifically limit power. Such as the US Constitution. Otherwise, any proposal that gets a majority vote is the law. Expecting people to voluntarily limit themselves assumes a greater restraint than some people possess.

1 Like