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.