Vague Societal Ideas

Ah, what the heck, I’ll elaborate on this case further.

In this specific case, I don’t even really know what he did or how bad the impact was, but in some cases, touching someone like that can be very damaging with them self-harming (cutting up their own genitalia), possibly committing suicide and retreating from anothers’ touch for many, many years, possibly for life.

There are a lot of people who likely view images they shouldn’t and as a collective remind people that there are always things up of them, but unlike this, this is very, very direct and very, very damaging. It is a very serious crime and one charities have a tendency of forgetting in favor of counter-intuitive soft targets.

It shouldn’t be treated like some sort of joke that “minors just do”.
The circumstances behind it do matter to some degree however, it doesn’t always have the worst impact, although you never can be sure and chances are that it will. I won’t elaborate in detail.

This doesn’t mean they should die for what is effectively a mistake which they were clearly remorseful for, when they were a minor no less and introduced to new emotions.

It’s not surprising that it’s the sister, as it’s often a family member and usually when people are asleep. This really could have been handled better, privately without the family getting involved and preferably anonymous.

No pressure for junk science interventions or feel good “suppress the desires” nonsense that just makes the problem worse. Seriously, you would think that half of the people writing such things have no clue what they’re saying. Wait, they don’t.

As a general rule, if you’re out of control (most people can control themselves tbh), try to stay away from kids, quit making excuses to go see them or conveniently picking professions that will bring you into contact with them.

If it’s family, that is harder, something to distract like an outlet perhaps, maybe a stupid sex doll, although that is very, very hard to hide and will definitely make them react badly, if nothing else does.

Find a weirdo like an autopedophile (I called myself a weirdo haha) or someone to RP with you. If you’re a minor, this may difficult as this may be against the law, if an adult is involved (and you can never be sure on the internet), and even if it wasn’t against the law, it would be against ethics rules.

Cartoons or something? Hopefully legal sexting, if the gap isn’t stupid big? This is very difficult because teenage sex drives are really active, I generally avoid giving such advice as it often goes down a dark road we don’t want to go down.

Variety usually helps, as the brain likes new stimuli (you can literally create any scenario in fantasy you want), although it does reset periodically. Orgasming multiple times might help. Simply looking at something without doing anything about it often just irritates it.

Eat healthy and don’t eat too much chocolate. Chocolate is an aphrodisiac, so unless you are firmly in control and want to make yourself happy, it is perhaps best eaten in moderation.

Simply looking at someone isn’t a problem, unless you’re being creepy or something. Don’t go on YouTube videos telling nine-year-olds how hot they are, if you do end up doing that. Don’t be one of those guys, it makes everyone look bad.

Try to avoid doing things that could put you behind bars, if it’s close enough, you probably shouldn’t be doing that either, especially as goalposts are moved every now and then with little rationale as to why or advance warning.

Mental disorders need to be treated properly by a specialist, preferably without giving away details about this, they often appear early enough in life however that they usually appear before it emerges, so you will likely get some idea on how to deal with it, provided you have good mental health coverage.

Just about every “hands-on” crime I have seen mentioned so far seems to involve either someone with ADHD, someone with autism, or something else. There are a couple others as-well who seemed mental disorder-less. I don’t deal with these people, even to help, as that is just asking for trouble from the police. Any place that has even one is hazardous to me.

Some mental disorders have proper medication, others don’t, some have very nasty side-effects. Get proper guidance from a specialist on the specific condition, not just a useless professional who just gives “generic help”. Try to work with it in your life rather than against it. Do research.

Don’t just parrot people either, come to your own conclusions on things and do your own research. For the record, PD doesn’t exist. When I say a mental disorder, I mean a real mental disorder, not just calling pedophilia and self-hate / stigma one.

One thing I should note because people keep poking me about it (even if I would like to pretend that site doesn’t exist and just watch more rational accounts like Prostasia) is the virtue signalling on Twitter.

I’m not even sure they are really MAPs or are just pretending to be, but they seem to brand anyone who thinks that anyone under 18 may be capable of consenting (in an advocation type way, not breaking the law) as “pro-contact” and argue to exclude them, which would effectively kill off the movement entirely.

They seem to think it is exactly the same thing as having sex with a three year old and that questioning it is a no no no. One thinks that anyone who does that is really someone who wants to have sex with three year olds trying “infiltrate” or anyone who doesn’t explicitly make condemnatory posts against advocating such.

One person even thinks the age of consent should be increased to 25. There is a big difference between being against abuse and polishing the turd.

@dontomiton I’ll contact you, I have been a little busy~

The NYTimes is an annoying organization that likes writing smear pieces.

They like to blame tech companies for problems that largely stem from society. Parents who leave kids to their own devices and are often stuck to mobile phones themselves. They want to go full China by having a government ID system.

They cite nebulous numbers like “45 million images” without saying what these images actually are. Sexts? Nudity? Clothed stuff? Sex? How many are duplicates? How many are private and simply backed up? They will mention that at-least some portion are the “worst of the worst”, and that is likely, but it is unknown what portion.

Is there any connection between this claim and the IWF being inundated with false reports?

They pull an old study out of the wood-work. Convenient confessions. They rely on polygraphs and there are even allegations of people being threatened to be kicked out of treatment plans, if they don’t confess to the “crimes they have obviously committed”.

They complain about low incarceration rates, when in truth, many are incarcerated under plea bargains where it is better to confess for a crime you haven’t than be hammered with a sentence five times longer.

More incarcerations is not the answer, Prostasia seems to doing some good things by pointing out alternatives in ads, this may help as opposed to saying this is illegal and go deal with it which never works.

There are many problems in the world, but expecting Silicon Valley to magic them all away does not work and will probably drive us all towards the next recession. It will also cause problems in Europe, as a lot of what the U.S. wants them to do flies in the face of the European data protection law.

Of course, asking the New York Times, or any other major news network, to fact-check and thoroughly examine their sources would be akin to cultural compromise. These “informative” information providers can’t be bothered to do something that would not only take a considerable amount of effort and care, but also be a sign of authenticity, simply because they don’t care enough about the situation at hand, and are likely more concerned with selling contradictory headlines. How droll. Its disheartening, to say the least.


Honestly, what they advocate is the absolute bare minimum, the therapist shouldn’t report someone if they’re in possession or even distributing it.

If they’re producing it, running a sextortion scheme, paying someone to livestream rape or abusing someone, that is more reportable, as this sounds as if they’re being truly malicious. Some countries like Germany (to my knowledge) give therapists absolute immunity even in those circumstances, so they’ll actually turn up to therapy no matter their past transgressions, but that may be a bit much for here.

This publication doesn’t seem to realize that if someone faces legal consequences for going to therapy, they will simply end the therapy or not bother turning up in the first place, in-fact they somewhat seem to realize this, but don’t quite join the dots together about who needs therapy the most.

None of this means they will magically escape prosecution from the police or have investigations against them nulled while they are in therapy. If they catch them, that is the same story of how they always catch them, but with therapy to hopefully reduce the amount of damage they do.

I’m not going to go into deep moralizing about such content, but the idea that someone viewing an image is just as traumatizing as them personally committing a crime tends to just shutdown any progress.

The important thing to remember is that therapy is not a magic bullet. It might reduce how many times someone views it, but it doesn’t guarantee that someone will actually stop doing it, especially not immediately.

If the argument is that each image you view (or perhaps, person you view) revictimizes them, then the therapy might reduce the number of times you personally revictimize them and it may also reduce the number of people whom you revictimize.

This goes double when you consider that a lot of therapy is really elaborate thought suppression or “coping mechanisms” which by definition is impossible to tackle the root issue. I would be very wary of any sort of magical thinking.

An alternative to the illicit imagery is perhaps one good idea.
You also need a certain level of discipline there as-well, although less so if you have not seen the illicit imagery. It certainly reduces the raw need however.

Discipline is not a particularly widespread trait.

In one case, I read the same article on four media outlets (it was about “Welcome to Video” getting shutdown). My memory is kind of fuzzy as it includes some technical details, but I remember the gist of it.

One said the site had 500 or so users, a few committed suicide to avoid arrest, that it got ran out of the owners bedroom, that people had to post content to join. He got arrested there because they found his IP in “View Source”.

Another said that because the website allegedly had millions of Bitcoin addresses (some scheme to make it harder to trace transactions?) that it had capacity for millions of users. They also said he was arrested by tracing the transactions.

Another said that it was the “largest site on the dark web” (if it’s the biggest one, then the FBI must be doing a really good job, because Child’s Play had a million accounts and 10k actual users). They claimed that because of it’s scale, it “must be” making millions and the owner doesn’t deserve his unusually light sentence.

Another said the site was making millions.

There is something that is off to me about this, the most notable being that different media outlets are effectively telling me different things with no coherent story. It is also strange, although not entirely improbable that 500 users would be spending enough money for the site to make millions.

I dunno, perhaps the media is just confused, but it is a little weird. Maybe, it is really big and one just did a misprint. I would expect these people to check the facts really carefully before publishing however. This is kind of the problem with the media.


I found one source that seems to cover a lot of detail, it is not “making millions” however.

During the 3 years of its operation, the site received at least 420 BTC, equivalent to $370,000 at the time when the site was taken down, through at least 7300 transactions.

If there is something I dislike, it is the media’s tendency to exaggerate. It doesn’t really make the site good either to not exaggerate, it just tells it how it is.

One thing I’d like to know is how these sites are managed. Where do they get their information from? Rumors? It’s sickening for these organizations to pass themselves as impartial, resourceful and flexible when it doesn’t entirely seem like that. When you have thousands of stories being contributed to your offices daily, you have to have a filter; only choose the most nebulous, grandiose, and scarcely documented stories, whilst inserting their own superficial idea of what they want a story to be, all to entice gullible, naive readers. It’s a race, a monetary chase. Who can conceptualize the biggest “disgrace”? Whoever wins makes the most money, without being questioned for authenticity purposes. Unfortunately, many readers of these columns only obsess over the article’s headline, and accept everything readily. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

It’s hard to tell. Sometimes, a media outlet will copy another media outlet, this gives rise to the saying that a lie can get half-way across the world before the truth can get it’s pants on.

They often will retract statements when challenged, but by that point, it is a little late. We might need more in the way of fact checkers, although they’re rarely mentioned for things like this.

I have received some allegations regarding activity in a chatroom which goes by the name of “MAP Support Chat”:

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Opinions are opinions.
It is deplorable they would allow someone to use a platform dedicated to support and preventing individual from killing themselves to advocate self-harm.

Please step up moderation and show that such conduct is unacceptable and strictly punished with permanent exclusion. This is NEVER okay.

Death is an escape, not an effective solution. When dealing with people you may not particularly tolerate, you must certainly avoid becoming some kind of monster yourself. Hate begets more hate. Killing, either through homicide or assisted suicide, is highly illogical; how is destroying someone going to bring any sort of substantial benefit? Where was this chatroom? Did you ever participate?

Nope, I have never been there. Apparently, this was actually quite a while ago, so they have probably improved by now, but it is pretty bad.

Boring fact. If you think something is illegal, it stresses you out and makes you worry about it more (including images in your head which would normally not really appear past looking at the thing) and makes it even more likely that you’ll escalate.

It doesn’t really matter if it actually is or isn’t.

That is completely true. A solid state of mind is quintessential for analytical and deductive reasoning. Speaking of, how do you deal with stressful topics? I usually have to process it, accept alternative viewpoints, do some observation and questioning, and find a solution which I can hopefully work off.

Cloudflare is very weird. They are the only tech company which could actually be considered as “looking the other way at child abuse” (unlike the others where they think they’re not proactive enough), but it is a classic case of intermediary liability and not wanting to open themselves up-to a mishmash of conflicting laws from over a hundred different countries.

They’ve changed their stance somewhat after the death of free speech in the West and their embrace of moderation. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The Dutch need to be better at handling their illegal sites.

It is similar to NCMEC and the police where they are just really underfunded (as-well as being bombarded by false reports, over 75% of the reports to the IWF are false, this should be an offense as it wastes police time) and incapable of properly doing their jobs and everyone likes to point fingers at tech companies (who have a million things they have to do to remain competitive other than this).

It should go without saying the IWF would have more time for “child abuse images”, if they stuck to that and didn’t try policing every computer generated form. These are apparently not a “waste of police time”, even though it is ultimately futile and counter-productive.

It should also go without saying that invoking the big scary ooga booga of “big tech companies” that fail when they have the resources distracts from the fact that many smaller sites and businesses don’t have the resources to address every contingency.

They instead have to not just satisfy all the somewhat arbitrary regulatory and “looking the other way” constraints, but they also have to bring their sites up-to snuff with the giants and add unique competitive bits.

They also have to minimize liability (the chances of them getting sued) as all it takes is one lawsuit to end many business. Minimizing liability tends to work in very counter-intuitive ways where there is a very perverse incentive to make anything suspect even harder to take-down.

Small businesses are also the ones most likely to break-up the monopolies, not heavy-handed regulation. Many have “encryption” or “privacy” as a competitive edge.

I guess when it comes to priorities, many put their own self-interests and immediate goals above that which lurks just under the surface. Most companies would see these offenses as a public “nuisance” that would destroy their reputation, and would focus more on perpetuating a false holiness rather than being overly concerned with protecting those who service them, which would probably help with morale.

B4U-Act seems like an interesting organization. One thing they did was cut all all discussion of contact one way or the other, an issue which creates a lot of contention and isn’t really that relevant to support when push comes to shove. It also has a tendency of possibly blowing up in your face PR-wise.

There also seems to be somewhat of a purity culture in some circles. I as one who stands for liberal freedoms am obviously in support of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, including that of speech which I do not like, although there is a place for such speech, and that is often not in dedicated support circles.

Emotional support is also a key criteria to reducing crime, that is to say that it is more important that someone gets support than it is to try to indoctrinate them in any particular ideology, and in truth, pushing people away towards the fringes (and it’s associated echo chambers) as is advocated by some troublesome people who have names like Lo, Liminal and Cinnamit only serves to irritate that itch.

It can also sometimes sever support channels as people naturally drift from ideology to ideology and can certainly exacerbate a sense of betrayal at former comrades who are quick to let them drift. Punishment and shaming, as we have learnt from research, is very ineffective at preventing people from doing what you don’t want them to do and is more likely to push them further.

It is also not very good for someone to converse purely with people who hold their views, as otherwise their views of society can sometimes drift from reality. I sometimes see this happening the other way, although this may be due to support communities like Virped being overly clinical which means that the people who are most likely to go there are those who are very distressed or have committed a terrible crime which they feel guilty of and this negative energy tends to rub off on others (I’ll go in-depth later).

Purity culture also approaches the realm of thought crime, as if someone is not committing a crime themselves and not advocating views that may be controversial, then there is little problem with their presence, provided they’re not making it painfully obvious to everyone involved and even that is slightly pushing the envelope.

I’m adopting new terms where ever possible. Illicit images as opposed to child pornography, or the dozens of new “we don’t think it sounds bad enough, so we’re going to invent a new term ever year” word salad. I am slightly concerned of the stigmatizing effects of such which frames it to be more harshly dealt with.

CSAM, CSEM, IIOC, CSE, CSAI, CAI.

I have lost track of how many there are, it really makes it difficult to have a conversation when we have twenty synonyms that mean essentially the same thing, that is children being raped.

These terms do have different meanings to different people at times, but one of the problems I kind of run into is that everyone seems to use them differently, add various different meanings to them and it tends to breakdown when the unspoken rule is they are just “CP”.

This is a personal view though.

Something to note is that you imagine people out to jump on kids, but a lot of “maps” as it were are really quite afraid of kids. This isn’t necessarily because they think they will commit a crime, but due to a simple trauma of self-loathing and such. Simply seeing kids, even in an image can be a bit of a trauma trigger.

Some are self-loathing to the point, they lash out at themselves, others like them, they criticize and accuse others. They improve with some degree of emotional support and perhaps other factors and become fairly well-adjusted, but it can take years.

It is usually good to get them comfortable in their own skin, it is not healthy to be like that. There is also an odd group that aren’t really maps, but who think they are and have intrusive thoughts. They are problematic because people sometimes think they are and think they are a representative group.

I go with the somewhat controversial view that it doesn’t really matter if someone looks at images of kids, provided they are doing it privately and they are sensible enough not to go out and harass them. I find it disturbing and embarrassing to be lumped in with such brainless people, although I tend to avoid looking at any real images, illicit or not (the reasons for that are complicated).

I am not entirely sure it is realistic to say that CG will magically solve the problem of realism and many social problems come when worlds collide. This isn’t talking about illicit images, illicit images are a very complicated problem, with problems on multi axii. I would be happy to do what I personally can to advance things in a CG direction.

I wonder if deepfakes could be good, as they can generate people who don’t really exist, even if the AI is trained on many people to get an idea of how to generate someone.

Dr. Craig Harper wrote a new paper on stigma. I was expecting to find more holes in it, but a lot of my criticism ends up being more on the framing of the paper. It is a good one, although it has it’s flaws. He also has some blog posts up on the subject.

I will add that just because someone may have a “rape fantasy” (regardless of whether they’re into adults or not), it doesn’t mean they would actually want to go out and carry out that fantasy. Running risk assessments on the basis on someone’s fantasies I would consider to be pseudo-science.

Unfortunately, it is not unheard of for people to be put on pseudo offender registries for being “high risk” in some countries for being interested in things like adult BDSM. I would be wary of setting any sort of precedent in that regard.

Whether it is a rape rape fantasy or a “consensual” fantasy, both would be equally harmful in the context of a child, if carried out in the real world. Them saying yes does not make it okay.

I am wary of anyone who tries to deal with stigma by tossing that stigma onto a hated group of their own.

For instance, those who call themselves “lolicons” may throw that stigma onto those who identify as “maps”. This doesn’t actually help, because the point of the opposition is that the cartoons lead people to rape and saying, they are the ones who do it does not actually refute this point.

I don’t believe in contact politics like the largely fruitless war of pro-contact vs anti-contact. Bad monikers as they all have completely different ideas of what these words mean.

Anyone who thinks it is okay to commit a hands-on crime today really needs to get their head examined. If they think they might be able to do it in completely different society, culture, that is almost impossible to exist, then it doesn’t really matter and it feels like this is what a lot of that is about.

It feels like it has devolved into simply throwing the hate thrown on one group at another. It should be noted that opinions such as pro-cp / anti-cp are a different axis independent of that one, people who like to conflate the points get them confused, but I have certainly seen people who identify as “pro-contact” who are “anti-cp”. Other types may be more problematic.

There seem to be an influx of trolls lately who claim to be in a relationship with an adult, push really radical pro-contact views or who push other problematic things. I find these types more troublesome as some conspiracy types actually fall for them. They should be banned imo.

I personally don’t think Twitter really is a good avenue of support, perhaps activism but not support (perhaps, they could be directed to dedicated support channels? it isn’t very reliable either as any anti-contact can be banned at any time on Twitter’s whims), so I’m on the skeptical on the whole “banning everyone” because they might negatively influence someone angle there.

Even if this may seem too simplistic and a bit unrealistic, it would help to have an anonymous forum to discuss this kind of behavior. Allow forums to be posted in the form of a question, let them speak to some other anonymous individual, and reward or reprimand a user based on how well they can vouch for their ideas, with legitimacy of course. It’s a bit narrow, but something like that could help as opposed to excessive or lax moderation.