Not particularly proud of all this, but as an autistic millenial kid who had access to the internet in the late '90s early 2000s I’ve got a relevant story.
If you wanted to look at boobs on the internet in the era of waiting a minute for images to load, Playboy was an easy way to avoid some of the more hardcore and kink porn on the internet. You could be pretty sure that regardless of what site you were on, Playboy content would actually contain boobs, and you wouldn’t waste 2 minutes slowly loading a picure of a dude in a gimp mask getting pegged through the bars of a pet cage (not trying to yuck anyone’s yum, but when you’re a dumb teen with absent parents looking for boobs, it wasn’t what I was after). Eventually Playboy content started to be considered “too vanilla” by the majority of porn users at the time, but I still liked vanilla and kinda let my Autism go crazy on occasion over the years to download and organize offline copies of a bunch of photosets.
Time passes, I get a bit older and become a young adult, the internet gets faster, at some point I revisit the porn archival hyperfixation, and foolishly write a script to scrape and download photosets straight from Playboy’s paid member-only site.
Obviously one of their web admins notices that my account is a huge chunk of their monthly traffic, and I get an email from their customer service basically saying their admins noticed unusual activity on my account, and to explain myself or face a ban. I made up some excuse that worked on the customer service agent and they let me off with a warning.
But the next day I got an email from the admin that said he knew what I had done, and that the answer I gave the customer service rep was a lie, and if he ever caught me again he’d send the police after me for possession of CSAM. I replied that the only images I had were from their site, how is that CSAM, and if there is CSAM they would be in more trouble for distributing/selling access to it. He wrote back and said yeah, we’re a company, the rules don’t apply the same as individuals, and that if I kept arguing with him he’d ban me anyway.
So, yeah, I deleted everything I had downloaded and decided that hyperfixation wasn’t worth it.
Go after them for child porn. Easy win law enforcement
Allred in her own statement noted that they are asking for the attorneys general to investigate the Hugh M. Hefner Foundation’s stewardship and actions. She observed that the documentation in question includes names of women the magazine publisher slept with as well as notes describing the sex acts they performed. “Crystal is especially concerned that these scrapbooks could contain images of minor girls,” Allred said. “Moreover, Crystal is also concerned that some of the images in the scrapbooks may have been taken without the informed consent of the adult women depicted, such as while they were intoxicated.”
What a bizarre and disgusting thing to do
People are shocked about Epstein and company , but the US had Playboy clubs in many cities were men would pay for membership.
“All bunnies had to go to the bunny mother’s office for an inspection.
“She decided if you were ready to go on the floor, before anyone could see you.”
While bunnies were hired to be professional and have interesting, intelligent conversation with guests, handing out numbers and sleeping with guests was strictly forbidden. When asked if girls ever broke the rules and gave their numbers out anyway, Bobbie said: “I’m sure they did.”
Please use the term CSAM. Secondly, if they can’t identify the people in the photos, the ages may be difficult to determine. That could legally be an area which might make enforcement of a law hard. I don’t know how these laws work, just throwing the idea out there. If I am wrong, someone please correct me. The article specifically mention California and Illinois.
Child porn. Kiddie porn. Child sexual abuse material. It’s all the same thing.
Being in porn ≠ consent. There is a shitload of porn out there that is absolutely non-consensual, and I wouldn’t be surprised if even a quarter of existing porn was consensual. Revenge porn is one specific non-consensual category, but porn producers often use manipulation tactics to groom young women into the industry, then dump them when they’re no longer “pretty” or whatever terms those shitheaps use.
why do you prefer csam over the other term?
Because someone made up the idea that porn must be consensual so they could quibble over terminology instead of doing anything about child sexual abuse.
It’s not about consent. Porn in its usual context is sexual media people use to get off. With CSAM the main subject is children getting abused, the fact that pedophiles use it to get off is a secondary consideration.
The victim should take precedence in nomenclature.
The victim should take precedence in nomenclature.
So “child porn” which makes it clear the victim is the child should be fine?
Porn isn’t something with a victim, it’s something a person gets off to. Sexual abuse material is a picture with an abuse victim whether or not someone is getting off to it, because that’s not the part that matters. It’s not porn because the fact someone gets off to this picture isn’t the important thing about it.
That’s like if you called someone a cannibal was eating “human meat” … Like no, meat is meant to be eaten as food, this is the “murdered remains of a person”.
I don’t even know if you’re being serious at this point. The distinction should be pretty clear.
The distinction you are trying to make is clear, it’s just not an actual current distinction in the English language.
You are inventing a part of the definition of pornography which says, “it does not have a victim” or alternatively, “the important thing about it is that someone gets off to it.” You won’t find that in any dictionary definition of porn, and the continued use of the term “child porn” shows that this is not how people use the word in practice.
So it’s not that you’re merely relating facts about terms. The only explanation is that this is a distinction you feel people ought to make. But compare it to other things:
- Revenge porn - another term where we use “porn” but where there is a victim.
- Drink driving - the word “drink” turns a term like “driving” which is not immoral or illegal, into something different. The focus is on the activity, not the victim.
- Theft - the focus is on the property stolen, not on the victim, its owner.
You aren’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t think that child porn is that bad that is actually is, by instead insisting everyone call it CSAM. It’s not the name that makes them think it’s OK.
Everything you’re saying is idiotically pedantic over distinctions that don’t exist in reality.
Right? There’s plenty of porn out there that’s unconsensual. Calling it the acronym obscures it more because no one knows wtf it means.
And that’s probably their real motivation for trying to force the acronym on us.
“Revenge Porn” is a more commonly-used term these days than is CSAM, and the whole point of it is that it’s non-consensual (though the original act may have been, the recording may, and the distribution by definition is not)
Do you know what the term “revenge porn” means? lmao. What country are you from?
…are you implying anything they said is wrong? What country are you from?
I’m from Writeaworthwhilecommentistan
When activists aren’t.
I believe the idea is that porn is consensual and a child cannot possibly consent. Because of this, the term child porn isn’t strong enough or an accurate description for the crime they have fallen victim to.
On the other hand, child sexual abuse material, and especially the shortened CSAM, feels very sterile as a term. I think “child porn” is by far a stronger term that evokes a more visceral reaction in the average person than CSAM.
Maybe as an acronym, but when you say the full phrase out loud it still feels pretty damn gross
Not as gross as “child porn”, or “kiddie porn”, I feel gross just typing that out. CSAM just feels more clinical, more detached, like a term a defense attorney would insist upon to avoid biasing the jury.
Calling it porn implies that a person can consent. A minor cannot consent.
You think that point is inherently consenting? That is not true at all.
Man, if you can’t trust a man who made a fortune selling nude photographs of women to not be a pedophile who can you trust?
we have personally reviewed these materials extensively over many years
Eww!
