Director Of Prominent “Non-Offending Pedophile” Group Virped Arrested for rape

[LewisCarrol_Jr]

Yes, there must be some reason for the introduction of new term to mislead the uncareful about the actual nature of what is being talked about, "CSAM".  I was guessing it had to do with the spread of the use of the term cp.  Online, at least for a while, cp had nonchalant, whimsical and acceptable connotations, and we can't have that.  Probably your right.  It's important for the public to be mislead about the actual nature of this porhibition in order for these agencies and businesses to continue (because lying about the true nature of what they were up to worked so well for the war on drugs).

[OneLove]

CSAM is just more spin doctoring by politicians to scare the general public into demonizing anyone who admits to being attracted to someone under 18. It's top-down power politics.

I have to say though that there is some merit in the fear-mongering, because there are way too many people who approach child sexuality from an abusive, self-serving, even forced (unwilling participant) perspective, as opposed to a loving relationship that happens organically.

The best relationships that we read about here at PSC involve flirtatious children or hebes and tolerant, playful adults.

Personally, I don't understand why people feel the need to record these kids and post their activities online for the world to see.

[Lillab]

I know that people just use CP and CSAM interchangeably, but do they actually mean the same thing? It is kind of nice to have different words for talking about different things, but I am struggling finding precise definitions of either one. The emphasis is definitely different, as CP implies something sexually arousing to the viewer, and CSAM implies something abusive to the subject. But what I want to know is how these terms interact with these four questions:

Is the content visual?
Is the child real?
Did the event happen?
Is the content depicting a sex crime?

Clearly a yes to all four is both CP and CSAM. But what about Nudism (no sex, real child and event), Deepfake (real child, fake sex event), and fully generated (fake child and event, but sexual)? Or even lolicon (very fake child and event, but sexual)? And then there are stories, either real or fictitious. Or maybe I am just wasting my time, because clearly the answer is whatever makes MAPs look more like monsters.

[NotPennysBoat]

The problem I have with many of these terms is they are "catch-all", and "hot button" topics with broad definitions. CSAM/CSEM are the latest terms, like CP, that quickly elicit emotionally charged responses. But how do you define it? Are we talking about a picture of a 15 year old, or a 5 year old? and what are they doing, if anything? Those are my issues with it.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, an acronym is unsuitable.

[on the rocks]

A simple definition of CSAM is if it depicts a minor either nude, semi-nude, or otherwise sexually suggestive; it's CSAM.  Doesn't matter if it's an image, a video, a text description; doesn't matter if it's an image of an actual child, something rendered by AI or other software or drawn by hand.  They want that definition to be as wide as possible so that anything put in the CSAM basket becomes "kiddie porn" to the general public.

They can't get away with calling lolicon 'child porn' because people would call them on that bulllshit.  So this basket term was created so they can call things like lolicon "child porn" by inference and thus manipulate the public and push the pedo panic lever a little more.

[OneLove]

In a legal sense, there is that hard age line of 18. A sexually explicit image of a 17 year old doesn't really become CSAM until the girl is positively identified as a "child."

I find it ironic that while nudism is still legal for minors, once you snap a family photo of your wife and daughter at the pool, you've become the dreaded pedo predator.

[LikelyHuman]

I think this is the most I have ever disagreed with you, LikelyHuman. I usually agree with everything you say other than some nuances.

I don't really think the fact that there's some group of pious "virtuous pedophiles" is really going to affect the way people think of pedophiles in general. Certainly no more than when some judge or investigator ends up busted with CP on their hard-drive. People are hypocrites....The truth is that no member of the general public ever actually believes that any pedophile is "non-offending" and most see very little difference between us and these VirPed members.

This is probably my biggest disagreement. I believe there are a ton of people out there that do think rationally, and do notice these nuances. At least, people who have an open mind and are willing to listen to reason. The public discourse has made it incredibly toxic, and these potential allies do not feel safe questioning the status quo, at least not out loud. Just because a few people are screaming and drowning out all other conversation, does not mean everyone shares those opinions. Just like with political parties, you often have a few leaders saying or doing things that the other members disagree with, but suffer it in silence. All too often, Republicans don't agree with the way Republicans are publicly being presented, and the same go for Democrats. But both are being told exactly what everyone of the opposing party believes, but it's a lie, because people are individuals.

I think there are a ton of people that see a huge difference between a no-contact pedophile and an active pedophile, and they see a huge difference between those that use force and violence and those that don't. It's currently not safe for them to point this out in public, but they know. However, the more they see hypocrites, the more they are willing to accept the lie that all no-contact MAPs are hypocrites, and the harder it becomes to swing the pendulum in the other direction. It makes it even more dangerous to turn on the status quo, but instead pressures them into virtue signalling. It's not safe for these people to state their real opinion, so it is hard to see the actual affects of these news reports.

I realize very few people in our community feel this way, as we are always talking about how dangerous it is to be open about our sexuality. I have many times been very open about myself, and I find most people to be good rational people. I didn't get much out of being open with them, and the few people who aren't this way turn the situation into a horrible disaster, so it's rarely worth being open about yourself. However, I really don't think the antis are the majority, they are simply dominating the conversation. And situations like this make it easier for them to keep dominating the conversation. Then again, I have a skewed view because I tend to only surround myself with more rational people. For example, I was confused that Trump ever came into power because all Republicans I know hate Trump. That's a product of my selection bias, which definitely applies here as well. So really, antis could be in the vast majority, but I just don't see it inside my little bubble.

Yeah, I agree that to speak in such absolutes isn't necessarily entirely accurate. I myself have been very surprised at the ability for people to have nuanced views on the subject. However, I also have to weigh that with questions about whether they really feel that way or if they're trying to placate me, if they would espouse different views publicly, and as basically the same kinds of doubts one might have about anyone proclaiming any specific value or belief.

What I think is most important, however, is not necessarily what individualistic nuanced views that any person may have, but what the societal consensus evidently is. That's what harks back to the laws on the subject, and when you can point out that the overwhelming majority of society will openly and proudly proclaim support for the skewed severity of the laws, it's kind of hard to put much stock into whatever nuanced views society has that are simply under-stated and under-represented. It's one of those things where a lot of people aren't willing to stand up for what they really believe in, and actually advocate or effect true change. Though, that's also true for any number of systemic issues in society, and some would say that it's not that people won't but that they can't. Many argue that the justice system in general is in dire need of reform because of things like systemic racism, but while it's really debatable how effective any of the advocacy and activism revolving around that is, said advocacy and activism is actually present and visible. When it comes to things like people trying to advocate for reform of sex-offense laws--and particularly sex-offense laws involving children--the faction of people doing it openly and publicly is so incredibly niche that it's pretty much always just written off as crackpots and/or misguided people. Or, at best, even when there might be some segments of society who do believe reform for those issues might be needed, they are more apt to say that there are other pressing issues that need attention first. I mean... Could you ever imagine something like what occurred in 2020 with Black Lives Matter, but instead with "Pedophile Lives Matter"?

Except I understand that's exactly why this guy turning out to be a hypocrite is so disappointing to people, as it tends to undermine the credibility of everyone else that's actually involved with related activism. Instead of the bulk of society viewing the voices for change as misguided crackpots, it immediately lends the idea of, "Oh, and they're not telling the truth about being non-contact anyway." I think it makes sense for people to want to immediately disassociate themselves from the person in question, and in some ways it's almost obligatory lest one's silence or defense of the person becomes misconstrued as tacit approval of their actions; you pretty much have to explicitly condemn their actions or accept that people will think you condone them. Beyond that, though, I don't think there's really much more use in practically crucifying the person as if doing so or not doing so will actually change anyone's mind. Most people have simply made up their mind already, and so the ones who think the non-contact advocates are all truly just hypocrites behind closed doors will still think that, and the ones who think there's more nuance and gray area to it will still think that too. For the few left that may still be forming an opinion or who may be open to entertaining a different one, I think that kind of posturing is transparent and so means nothing to them. What is much more compelling and impactful is to point out to them, "...oh, and for his hypocrisy, he will now be sent to prison for 10-15 years, have to register as a sex offender, and face immense discrimination and persecution for the rest of his life."

That's what still frustrates me about it, because the discussion about how severe his crimes actually were compared to the punishments he will endure still hasn't taken place--at least not as widespread as it should have. I think as on the rocks has pointed out, a lot of that comes back to the use of spin in ways that foster the suppression of that type of discussion. People hear that someone has been busted with CSAM on their computer, immediately stop questioning it and are ready to lock them up and throw away the key. By the time anyone comes around an asks, "Wait, so you're telling me that it was just AI generated pictures?" or "Oh, it was just lolicon?" it's already too late and the court of public opinion has already condemned them. I think his point always ties directly into what I was talking about with the way they've also co-opted the term "sexual assault". Now the same person who had CSAM on their computer, is thought to have had troves of hardcore child pornography, and if they committed some kind of "sexual assault", then they're thought to have violently raped someone too when it's entirely possible and even likely that neither thing is even close to the truth.

It's actually kind of ridiculous how closely it aligns with "Newspeak": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak (tor safe, no js needed)

[OneLove]

Morality and norms are reflected in our laws. Until the law changes, all opinion is just talk (mine included). Look at how long it has taken sodomy laws to change. It was only legalized on the federal level 20 years ago, and is still technically illegal in 14 states. I don't see any softening in attitudes about CSAM, including AI and illustrations, any time soon.

Just look at the history of book banning in the US. For God's sake even Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were banned at one time. Banning often hinged on a single phrase or even word. It's so ridiculous it's laughable.

[Lillab]

I keep doing more research into the terms CP and CSAM. I feel pretty confident now that these terms are completely interchangeable, as I have not found a single organization say they cover different things. However, their definitions do change drastically based on context, mainly because the laws change so much across jurisdictions. So for the US

source: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sexual_abuse_material_2.pdf (Clearnet, Tor Safe)

The term "child pornography" is currently used in federal statutes and is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old. While this phrase still appears in federal law, "child sexual abuse material" is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. In fact, in 2016, an international working group, comprising a collection of countries and international organizations working to combat child exploitation, formally recognized "child sexual abuse material" as the preferred term

Federal law prohibits the production, advertisement, transportation, distribution, receipt, sale, access with intent to view, and possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Underlying every sexually explicit image or video of a child is abuse, rape, molestation, and/or exploitation. The production of CSAM creates a permanent record of the child's victimization.

This 15 page document never mentions artificially generated content, instead always talking about the child who is being victimized. That means in the US, CP/CSAM means visual, real children, and sexual in nature, although a fake event would still count (i.e. deepfake). They will definitely take down any on topic site, regardless of whether it meets this threshold, and seize all your equipment. You just won't get charged for any crimes. Individual states have different laws, as do other countries. I think it is only CSAM if the law says it is.

Over and over, people keep emphasizing the switch from CP to CSAM simply because of the connotation. "Porn" has lost most of its stigma over time, and hence wanting to use "abuse" instead. It's like they felt pedos had co-opted the word for themselves and turned it into a positive thing, so they needed a new derogatory term for it.

source: https://www.adfsolutions.com/news/what-is-csam (Clearnet, no JS required)

Child pornography- more properly identified as Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). It's appalling that there is a need for a definition for this kind of material. U.S. Federal Law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor- meaning any person less than 18 years old.

However, the phrase "child pornography" is almost too sterile and generic to properly exemplify the horrors of what is being created. That is why many advocates, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), believe this phrase to be outdated.

NCMEC refers to these kinds of material as Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), in order to "most accurately reflect what is depicted- the sexual abuse and exploitation of children".

As a result, many organizations and advocates now refer to this material by the new term rather than "child pornography" because it explicitly ties the material to the source of the problem; the abuse that is being perpetuated to create it. Furthermore, children are re-victimized every time a file is shared, sustaining the abuse in a continuous loop.

So, I strongly feel like it isn't CSAM if there isn't a real child in the picture. There is no child being sexually abused. Likewise, you can say the same about child porn, because there actually isn't a child involved. It's just fantasy porn. In my collection, they aren't children. They are vampires, fairies, aliens, and sexbots. But no, such fantasies end up landing people like Charlie into severe consequences. He was initially given 4 weeks of detention, with 2 weeks solitary confinement, before he even has the opportunity to defend himself. Because that's the way the justice system has always worked everywhere, guilty until proven more guilty. I absolutely hate how steep consequences are before court even begins.

[zergrush111]

A lot of antis dont really realize this but an actual, real deal nonoffending pedo is EXTREMELY rare. Sure, there is a few on this forum, and I admire their absolute discipline and dedication, but for most people if they are a pedo they have ABSOLUTELY done something with a kid. They have made advances, they have spied on them, kissed then, watched cp of them, groomed them, whatever. Even when I was heavily restraining myself I still made out with little girls, set up spycams, downloaded cp, and masturbated with their panties, I probably did more but I forgot. There is no such thing as a nonoffending pedo if we are talking about one who has never offended. You basically have to be totally asexual. And living the rest of your life without being able to act on it, ever, is about as difficult as living celibate and never watching porn. I fucking dare any anti to go and try that. No porn, no relationships, no hookups. Just you by yourself and them, to make it further realistic, beat yourself up every time you see an attractive woman in public. Do that forever now. Oh, you cant? Cool. Its why those on this forum that are able to live with absolutely nothing are rare breeds, similar to monks. It must have taken years of dedication to do that. I wish I could.

I sometimes wonder if it would be more humane if we allowed voluntary euthanasia for people like me who tried therapy and it just didn't work to curve their desires and instead their desires escalated and escalated. I think about having sex with kids nearly every day now and theres no healthy outlet. And im sure like this dude eventually I will be caught. Because being a pedo is a game of either total monkhood(without the religion) or getting arrested and thrown in jail forever.

[Lillab]

A lot of antis dont really realize this but an actual, real deal nonoffending pedo is EXTREMELY rare. Sure, there is a few on this forum, and I admire their absolute discipline and dedication, but for most people if they are a pedo they have ABSOLUTELY done something with a kid. They have made advances, they have spied on them, kissed then, watched cp of them, groomed them, whatever. Even when I was heavily restraining myself I still made out with little girls, set up spycams, downloaded cp, and masturbated with their panties, I probably did more but I forgot. There is no such thing as a nonoffending pedo if we are talking about one who has never offended. You basically have to be totally asexual. And living the rest of your life without being able to act on it, ever, is about as difficult as living celibate and never watching porn. I fucking dare any anti to go and try that. No porn, no relationships, no hookups. Just you by yourself and them, to make it further realistic, beat yourself up every time you see an attractive woman in public. Do that forever now. Oh, you cant? Cool. Its why those on this forum that are able to live with absolutely nothing are rare breeds, similar to monks. It must have taken years of dedication to do that. I wish I could.

There are so many different scenarios though that we put under this umbrella. First, there is the spectrum of exclusive to non-exclusive primary to secondary. And then there is the overall strength of your sex drive. There's a difference between how someone's sex drive affects them, whether it changes their empathetic ability or aggression. And so the level of strength it takes to resist is very different for different people. But we also can't openly talk about these things, so we don't know actual breakdowns of our demographics. I assume it is very common for those with a secondary attraction to go their whole lives without crossing a sexual legal boundary, and yet whatever struggles they do go through they will simply take to the grave. I also can't see anyone making their way to this forum without having a particularly strong drive. That selection bias alone would make it extremely rare for anyone to be here without ever having broken a sexual taboo. PSC definitely filters out both extremes, so we don't represent the whole situation.

I also think it is interesting you talk both about those who have never crossed boundaries, and those who have learned self mastery like a monk. No monk was born a monk. It takes training. Before you get there, you will make mistakes. It's part of growing. How easy it is to reach this self mastery is also very different for different people. It's not really fair to compare. I am exclusive pedo, but I also don't have a strong impulse start a sexual relationship. It's very easy for me to control myself around kids, at least if I am not drunk or high and alone with them. As far as CP goes, I don't really have a strong pull towards the regular CP. I have started again, but that's because I don't have a moral issue with it. I'm not noticing any negative effects, although I am noticing some positive effects. It helped satiated my curiosity, and now I find much of it to be a bit boring, particularly hardcore, usually just men playing with living sex dolls. I can definitely satisfy all of my desires with just nonnude, stories, and lolicon. Of course, even those are illegal in some jurisdictions. What I have to deal with, as far as attractions and temptations go, is very different from what others are dealing with. That's not because of my strength or accomplishment. And it definitely has changed a lot over time.

I sometimes wonder if it would be more humane if we allowed voluntary euthanasia for people like me who tried therapy and it just didn't work to curve their desires and instead their desires escalated and escalated.

This is quite dark. As a teen, I was very much a pedo, but I was also no-contact, but not perfect at it. Entering my 20s, I decide to get help so I can just put this all behind me. I wasn't out of control. I didn't get caught. I just wanted to keep growing as a person. And holy shit, fuck those therapists. I went to very evil and abusive men. They had no fucking clue what they were doing, and made everything worse in every way. They increased my obsession, robbed me of what self control I had, shoved me into the pits of depression and anxiety. They were the broken ones. I wasn't broken until they broke me. The results of this therapy is not a reflection of me. The therapy is broken, not the patient. Of course in the depths of this depression I would have chosen euthanasia, so I am glad it wasn't an option. Not all therapy is the same. Therapy is definitely not some magical solution. But overall, I believe most therapy is on par with medieval medicine. It has a long way to go, but in many situations it is better than nothing. That's why I believe your therapy results don't mean jack shit about you, and any allusion otherwise just pisses me off.

[OneLove]

A lot of antis dont really realize this but an actual, real deal nonoffending pedo is EXTREMELY rare.

Your argument has a lot of merit. I've never thought of it quite that way before; ie, trying to live a saintly life. You would quite literally have to be asexual. I enjoy reading 19th and 18th century erotica, and they frequently openly admit to being sexually attracted to prepubescent girls.

It seems as technology advances, so does the government's control over us become increasingly restrictive.