Discover Top Posts Tagged with #cw csem

@z4chzwh0re is a predator and bully supporter. Heres how I'll prove it.

First of all, he interacts with the stalker and sexual abuser known as stench-of-a-rot. And believed him over the victim over a bullshit excuse, heres two pictures I found directly from his blog

First one is the bullshit excuse, and the second is his response.

This goes straight against his stance K9queer. As it is against noncon harm. AND bullying, which I'll get to.

Here is another picture of a person who has talked to Zach. [If you're unfamiliar, Jay is a person who has groomed and had CSEM of children.]

They have also talked to someone who has bullied another innocent person and supports permamonkia, other known as HTK106

Here is the proof, this person has also told someone to get raped and killed over not supporting permamonkia. Image is put here

And here's another thing I found about Zach

Why would YOU interact with multiple groomers, sexual harrasers and predators if you were against it? This is only a excuse to not get canceled.

This man is a hypocrite. Someone who interacts with people who have abused other people. And then turns around and says he doesn't support groomers and bullies.

Edit: here's a picture from the victim of the stalking too, after they reached out to me

canon event for folk suspecting they may be intersex is searching for illustrations of their trait/variation on Google Images just to get bombarded with sexually exploitive images of infants and children because ""It's Not Supposed To Look Like That!!!"

CSAM is bad!!! oh but excluding if the victim is intersex. that's okay. for. Educational Purposes!! Yeah! the part where we go "Parents? You see your kids' genitals? yeah- that? does it look like this? Yeah It's wrong!!! It may not cause them any medical issues or does it negatively effect them in any capacity but- yeah it's Wrong!!! This is Educational BTWl!!"

jesus fucking christ I don't want to see an infant getting medically violated. I don't want to see multiple shots and angles of their genitalia being stretched by medical tools. I don't want to see multiple Before And After shots and angles of their genitalia being "corrected". I don't want to see multiple images of the "Absence Of A Clitoris In A 13-Year-Old Female Adolescent".

this is intersexism and child exploitation.

every time I talk to my girlfriend about my variations she googles them automatically and gets jumpscared. it should be fucking illegal. trans kids can't read books with trans main characters but any sicko can go on GOOGLE IMAGES and see uncensored infant genitalia? it's terrifying. I feel awful for all of the children that have their genitalia permanently on the internet, showcasing their mutilation.

#this is intersexism #intersexism #intersex #intersex community #actually intersex #intersex pride #intersexuality #tw csem #cw csam #csam mention #cw csem #child exploitation

(Reposting this older writing as a standalone piece in order to be a provocative asshole)

There's been a recent successful Hollywood movie focusing on pop star Michael Jackson so I thought I might go ahead and kick the hornet's nest. Now, I'm no expert on any of this, but I am in a unique position to comment on a certain weird detail related to Michael Jackson.

In 1993, pop music star Michael Jackson's house was searched as part of an investigation into allegations that he had molested children. There was a locked file cabinet located in Jackson's bedroom closet. And inside were three books: "Boys Will Be Boys," "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," and "In Search of Young Beauty." All three of these are large-format photobooks focusing on young boys, with a mixture of clothed, nude, and semi-nude subjects.

To be totally clear: the books are not illegal (as his defenders have repeatedly and angrily explained to me). I have seen so many people defending him and these books, explaining them away as very normal, popular, tasteful books that are not strange at all. For instance:

Typically, when people start making these sorts of emphatic claims about any book, my gut instinct is to ask "Well, have you actually read it yourself?" And the answer is almost always "Well no, but..."

So I decided fuck it, I'll just track down the books and see for myself. And in the process I uncovered a few relevant facts about the books that no one else seems to have ever pointed out:

Let's explore the specific contents of the two main books made by the NAMBLA guys: "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," and "Boys Will Be Boys." And heads-up, I'm gonna just bluntly give all the details, and that means that I have to be a little too detailed for most people's tastes. Consider yourself warned. Both books feel broadly the same to me. Many photos of boys, mostly in black and white, with a mix of different types of photos I might lump into three categories: fully clothed, extremely little clothing, and naked. I'd say that the first two categories are roughly equal in amount, and the last category is less for both books. Just to give a really rough estimate I might say something like a split of 40% / 40% / 20%. Most people are, rightly so, going to be more concerned about the nude images, so let's focus on those. The photos that appear to feature nudity are usually presented as being in some situation that is clearly intended to make it seem more natural. Most this is skinny dipping at the beach or in a stream, or in a bath or shower, and I think there were also some playing in the water from a broken fire hydrant or something? A number of these nude photos are careful to avoid actually showing any genitals. A typical example of a nude photo in here might be a boy, photographed from the side, who has climbed onto the branch of a tree and is kind of kneeling down on it. Due to the positioning and pose, you can see neither the buttocks nor the penis and testicles, even though he is clearly naked. Another example might be a boy who is floating in the water on his back with his body mostly submerged, as seen from above, with the water's ripples obscuring any details of his body. There are, however, other photos that are, in my opinion, clearly excuses to display buttocks or frontal nudity. I'd say maybe a bit under half of total nude images, so maybe just under 10% of the books' contents. Among the clothed photos, however, there are also very many photos of boys that are, for lack of a better term, "sus": wearing no shirt, or short-shorts, or tiny swimsuits, or underwear, for instance. Some of them are really ridiculous in how revealing it is, so I don't want to give you the impression that these photos aren't as bad. The ones that I felt were probably most out of line were multiple images of boys eating hotdogs, bananas, and playing flutes for reasons that I'm sure are not at all concerning.

all that see this, please repost, spread the message, share to anyone, this needs to get out.

what the absolute FUCK are you all doing. you say "we protect minors!" "we're normal!"

Right, right, yet you decide to post CSEM/CSAM of a rq when prn was younger and post it to a safe space. YOU ARE SICK. You claim "we protect kids", but is protecting kids really sharing csam/csem in a safe space where they can talk amongst one another, share experiences and ask for advice when they're down really "protecting kids"? you all are sick. maybe we lot dont get it, but how is THIS protecting minors, sharing csam/csem of people just because they're rq/proship.

you lot of antis need to know what illegal bullshit some of you are doing. its sickening the lengths you will do to harass us, posting uncensored gore in tags, and now posting csam/csem into a safe space. disgusting.

censored image below cut with permission to share, this image is NOT ours.

#tw csam #tw csem #pro radq #radq please interact #radqueer 🌈🍓#rq 🌈🍓#proud rq freak🌈🍓#rqc🌈🍓#pro para #pro transid #transid safe #rq safe #rq freak🌈🍓#cw csam #cw csem #pro rq 🌈🍓#op is a radqueer

RE the child sex offender anon:

I’m a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and that is precisely what has always driven me to have empathy & compassion for people who are sexually attracted to children

I’m not sexually attracted to children at all—in fact being around children is actively retraumatizing for me because all I can do is think about how vulnerable they are and what a terrifying and horrible place the world is

But I have a ton of sympathy for people who want to consume simulated or fictional content about children having sex, including content about child sexual abuse

Part of how I’ve processed my trauma has always been both writing and reading toddler con. And if it was legal or safe for me to draw or read lolicon/ shotacon art and media, I would

But I live in a jurisdiction where any visual representation of children or child-like figures in a sexual context is a crime—reading it, watching it, possessing it

The law treats that engagement with fictional imagery as equivalent to engaging with actual child sex abuse material

I’m very anti CSEM/ CSAM. There’s very likely some of child me out there on the internet. I know photos and videos were taken when I was pubescent. I am not going to look for it or try to get it taken down. I just don’t want to know

But engaging with fiction has been healing for me. I know I can never tell anyone in my real life (aside from my therapist: I’m privileged to have both money to cover therapy and a therapist who is kink-positive and understands trauma) that I do it—even though less than 8% of child sexual abuse victims go on to become sexual predators, there’s that pernicious stereotype that CSA victims are the majority of CSA perpetrators (false)

And I know fucking so many people who would assume that because I get off to and explore my history of abuse by writing erotica in which kids who were the same age I was during my abuse (5-17) would think that I’m a “pedophile” too. (Paraphilias are pseudoscientific bullshit, also, frankly)

So my heart 100% goes out to anyone living with the fear of discovery and the shame society heaps on us. Regardless of what you find erotic or attractive: your thoughts are not crimes. Your words are not crimes (or they shouldn’t be!) Your art is not criminal.

Beyond that: I’m a big believer in restorative justice. If you’ve served your time and are committed to not offending again, then it’s in my heart to extend grace and forgiveness. You’re a human being, you’re fallible, you made a horrible decision in the past. But you are not evil or irredeemable in my eyes. I wish everyone healing and an opportunity to make amends, to grow, and to do better going forward. That’s justice. That’s harm reduction. And it’s also the only path to a more empathetic and equitable and safe world, for everyone, including children & survivors of CSA.

Wow, very thoughtful personal story thank you so much for confiding in us 🥲

Hey! Saw this word on one of your posts and don’t know what it means. What is CSEM? Is it like CSAM or is it something different?

CSEM is child sexual exploitative material, and CSAM is child sexual abuse material.

They are more of less used interchangeably, however some people make the distinction that CSAM is about content that involves direct sexual contact, while CSEM is a broader term that refers to content that involves any sexual exploitation (regardless of whether contact was involved, such as exposing the nudes of a minor online.)

But again, not everyone follows those distinctions, so your point gets across just fine regardless of the acronym you use.

#youth liberation #child liberation #children's rights #childrens rights #youth rights #youthlib #kid lib #kids rights #protect the children #cw child abuse #cw csem #cw csam #cw csa mention #cw csa

Some Facts & Personal Knowledge from A Human Trafficking Survivor

I had a post like this that disappeared from tumblr (probably moderated out of existence) so I'm rewriting it with more careful language. Hopefully I can recapture the gist of what it said. Please mind the CWs.

I am speaking out as a survivor. I've experienced much of (though not all of) the experiences I describe here, and I'm not going to answer personal questions about what happened to me. Please be respectful of that.

First, involuntary human trafficking isn't exclusive to countries with less wealth. It happened to me in the United States.

Most people have a stereotype view of what human trafficking is, and who it can impact. Needless to say, women and girls are not the only victims of this crime. It can and does happen to men and boys as well as trans, nonbinary, and intersex people like me.

A few other things you may not know:

Some people traffic their own children or grandchildren (yes, for real).

Some trafficked children are literally born to other trafficked children as a result of SA or non-consensual artificial insemination.

Trafficking often looks normal from the outside. Traffickers go to great lengths to make it so, enrolling their victims in school and other normal activities, presenting as a "parent" at doctor's appointments etc. You may even know someone who's being trafficked right now.

Trafficking can involve many different forms of slavery, not just the one that likely came to mind first (I'm being coy here to avoid getting this post taken down).

People who are being trafficked usually will not tell you what is happening to them for good reason. Their handlers have likely threatened them very effectively (for example, I knew my handlers would try to end my life when I escaped, and I was right). Handlers usually have significant power (often financial and legal) that keeps them silent as well. Some individuals are even forced or tricked into signing non-disclosure agreements.

Many trafficked children are not aware of human trafficking as a concept and don't understand what is happening to them. All they know is that it's different than the childhoods they see other children having.

Traffickers use any means of control at their fingertips, often preventing individuals from even building their own savings or accessing the Internet to make plans for eventual escape. They also deliberately sabotage their victims relationships to prevent rescue. Trafficked people are also often forcibly exposed to substances as an additional means of control.

Survivors who escape are often left with not only Complex-PTSD, other trauma disorders, or substance-use disorders.

Survivors also have a complex set of issues with entering normal life due to the restrictions placed on them previously. Some have no legal documents or medical records and/or no job history to reference. Those who were financially abused may also have debt and bad credit deliberately created by their handlers to decrease their capacity to escape.

Survivors are often disabled. They may have been born disabled and were targeted by traffickers because they would be easier to control (hi, me, here). Or they may develop disabilities as a result of physical abuse and living conditions enforced by their handlers.

Many survivors are targeted even after escaping, and some don't make it through that. My handlers stalked, harassed, and attempted to off me, which is why I'm being very careful how much I say about my own experience here.

My questionable and inflammatory political opinion: I think making AI-generated pornography from your own baby pictures or the baby pictures of somebody else who enthusiastically consented to doing so in person or in another way where it was verifiably them (because of deepfakes and shit) is one of the more ethical applications of AI. I don't like AI but if generating AI slop of yourself keeps you from having actual CSAM on your computer and furthering the abuse and trauma of an existing victim... That's a net positive in my view. Already predicting a lot of backlash for this, but whatever.

Stop. Everyone hold on a minute. This is clearly one of those questions where people’s revulsion gives us an answer faster than our reasoning does, and I do always say that that's a bad sign. I pride myself on being open-minded and thinking things through logically, not just based on emotional gut reactions.

So what I need to do is take my time, meditate, clear my mind, and approach this from a sort of clear, rationalist, philosophical perspective.

Hmm...

Okay.

Yes, there is a real ethical distinction there. If no actual child is being abused, no existing abuse material is being recirculated, and the images are generated from one’s own baby pictures, then that is plainly not the same category as real CSAM. I mean that is true.

Most importantly, it does avoid the central horrors of CSAM: the fact that a real child was sexually exploited, and that the resulting material continues that violation every time it is possessed and shared.

So I do think you're identifying a genuine philosophical point, and I do not think it should just be sort of brushed off due to our instinctual disgust.

In fact, I'll preemptively say that some of the most obvious potential arguments against this material don't really hold water to me:

People might say that a baby can't consent to having porn made of them, even if that is going to happen in the distant future, and even if the person doing so is their future adult self. I don't buy this claim because it starts getting into territory that's weirdly like... metaphysical, I guess? Like, this claim seems to view the infant and the adult as two separate people, one of whom is being wronged by the other across time. But that's just not true. The way human rights are conceptualized is entirely based on the idea that people have an unbroken continuity of their personhood over time (even if it's rarely spelled out because it seems so obvious).

One seemingly strong argument people might make is a sort of social argument: if we were to fully allow synthetic sexual imagery of children’s bodies, even under narrowly defined consensual circumstances, it may start to "normalize" such depictions in ways that subtly and nefariously shifts societal and cultural values over time. But that whole concept really does go against my entire perspective on Free Expression. I think I've been pretty explicit here that I only think media should be outlawed if it causes tangible, direct harm to a specific person. Because once you establish that you can ban something because it might subtly push culture in a bad direction over time, you've set this precedent that WILL be used for other things. It's something that you really can't start making exceptions for.

HOWEVER before I throw my unconditional support behind this concept (and get absolutely cancelled into fucking oblivion in the process lol), I should say that there might still be some other less obvious ethical questions this raises, mainly when it comes to someone consenting to a third party using their photos, and/or when money gets involved:

Not to state the obvious here, but there are already issues regarding the exploitation and coercion of vulnerable individuals in the world of pornography. Is it possible that we might see poor people being offered serious money to allow deepfakes to be made using their childhood photos and video, even if they feel uncomfortable with it?

I'm actually super unclear whether a third-party would be obtaining the rights to the individual's likeness, or just getting the right to use the childhood photos. That might not seem important, but there's a serious difference there that many people might not realize: the person who owns the rights to a photo is almost always the person who actually took the photo. So if this is just about the right to use photos of someone, that raises some red flags. Could a parent sell the rights to use photos they took of their own child in this manner (after the child turns 18)? What about a professional photography studio (yes, they still own the rights to the photo), if the child had previously been working as a model or something? I actually don't know how it would work.

Allowing this could end up potentially causing some evidentiary and enforcement problems. Because in theory, yes we could construct a tiny, carefully walled-off category of "fully consensual, non-abusive synthetic material." But in practice, people lie, verification is messy, provenance is weak, etc. Now, it would be trivially easy to prove that it's you in an AI photo you made of yourself. But I suspect that opening it up to third-parties who have obtained consent from others to use their childhood photos would make things vastly more complicated.

So the strongest argument here can be made regarding someone using their own childhood photos for sexual AI-generated images. I'm actually finding it surprisingly hard to find logical arguments for any direct harm happening there.

But the idea of somebody else consenting to allow a third party to use their childhood photos in this manner raises a lot more questions. Now yes, that is ethically distinct from CSAM - that's absolutely true. But its not like that automatically means ethically good. I'm not saying my answer is definitive on this, but it's just not yet clear to me if there's a way to safely allow this.

Holy shit this is long lol.

But you know what? This topic is complex enough that it requires a long answer.

Now I just sit back and wait for the 10 upvotes to come rolling in lol 😎

(Reposting this older writing as a standalone piece in order to be a provocative asshole)

So I decided fuck it, I'll just track down the books and see for myself. And in the process I uncovered a few relevant facts about the books that no one else seems to have ever pointed out:

#cw csem

Trending Tags

Recently Viewed Tags

#cw csem