A child porn rating system in the US would undermine NCMEC ect al fear mongering

[zarkle]

This is a thread about my criticisms of the United States National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's public communications. Also known as NCMEC, pronounced "Neck Meck" I am not saying they should be abolished or that everything they do is useless or that they are the enemy in a us v. them battle. No, I argue they do have a purpose in protecting kids and identifying children in harm, and we should not engage them negatively. But I am sharply acccusing NCMEC of extremely biased reporting and fear mongering with public communications. To making all child lovers appear as sadist in the public's mind. The same criticism also applies to Tim Tebow's highly biased inaccurate report to US congress that I will disect later.

So if you know me from around here you know I have a scientific doctrine that I want to go viral in MAP circles called (Disgust Theory) in which I make the case that I strongly disagree that anti pedophilia is exclusive to Western puritan influenced culture. I discussed many times in previous threads. I strongly believe the main reason pedophiles are extremely hated and despised are parental protection instincts wild animals have, and the same primitive neurocircuits mother animals used to defend their offspring from predatory animals got repurposed in humans to oppose pedophilia. Even though not all cultures have it evolution favored that probability due to how strong parental protection is in the animal kingdom. Evolution shows 100s of millions of years of parent animals defending their young at all cost. In my example 50,000 years ago it was momma defending a cave child in the Savannah of Africa from a hungry leopard or lion. 50,000 years later in the 21st century its paranoid right wing parents reading about qanon adjacent crap on right wing social media about sadistic child torture crimes, and satanic pedo cannibals. All because the same neuro circuits to protect children got repurposed in modern society, the predatory animals went away but the brain circuits to detect them did not, and western culture taps into child protection instincts stronger then any other culture by chance. The bliss inducing motivation part of my Disgust theory doctrine is that Western culture is capable of logic and reason over powering brutish instincts, and that eventually society will realize extreme hatred of pedophiles is just a instinct and will reason its way out of it and embrace adult child love in the future.

But knowing this has evolutionary bedrock does not mean we should not explore cultural affects that make it better or worse. Like the communications of NCMEC broadcasting to the public in a extremely biased way to make child lovers appear as sadistic monsters.

The topic I am focusing on is the extremely small percentage of brutal child porn being preceived as the only type of child porn in the public's imagination. Most of society thinks of child porn is synonomous with torture dungeons, rape and brutal abuse in a qanon fever dream due to NCMEC and law enforcement's irresponsible biased public communications. They only publicly communicate about the worst like hurtcore and the criminal 764 network coercively sextorting teenagers. In this thread I will shed light on non abusive child porn like the reality of commonly circulated swimwear shop bikini catalogs, social media videos of kids, dance wear class kids twerking, as well as teenagers voluntary safely sharing nudes and junior idol agencies all that many times meet the definition of legally defined CSAM. Category C in the UK, while pointing out that the US intentionally has no child porn rating system tier list, which leads to everyone assuming the worst. And that US law enforcement benefits from the public being ignore and assuming the worst.

I am making the case that if the United States had a CSAM category sysem, like my just invented one

Child porn severity rating system by zarkle

Tier 1: Children being raped violently and sadistically abused as well as abusive sextortion
Tier 2: Prepubescent children being non violently (debately) raped by fathers and step fathers and others (includes anal, oral, vaginal)
Tier 3: Teenagers sexting, teenagers voluntary having sex, and prepubescents posing in sexual ways possibly with adults photographing them
Tier 4: Little girls in dance class, children from swimwear clothing webpages, little girls dancing and twerking in their bedroom to fav music

It would be shown that tier 3-4 vastly outnumber tier 1 and largely outnumber tier 2 showing that almost all pedophiles are not sadist and that they have known ethical boundaries, such as my stance of pro kiss and cuddle contact with prepubescents and personal belief to never have sex with children until at least tanner stage four of puberty around 13 when they are TEENAGERS.

The evidence is there that the softcore categories 3 and 4 would vastly outnumber Tier 1 (the worst) and even largely outnumber tier 2 (the debatable sex contact with prepubescents) This would challenge the horror narrative NCMEC promotes. and yes I understand that children in the worst conditions need to be investigated over safe ones, but that does not excuse NCMEC from extremely biased reporting. The only reason they can get away with this is because being extremely biased against pedophiles is allowed.

Most new child porn (mid 2010s and up) legally defined CSAM of prepubescent girls being produced is self generated Tier 4 (least concern borderline). It is not children being sadistically raped in dungeons like the public imagines or even having sex (debatable rape) with men. Despite the worst images being circulated widely on niche dakrnet corners they are rarely newly produced and always detected by photoDNA so the public never sees it. Where as "tier 4" least concern slips the filters because its so non serious. NCMEC intentionally uses this to conflate numbers. Once again Tier 4 is little girls in their bedrooms filming themselves dancing (twerking), little girls at the beach in swimwear, little girls at dance class.

Obviously law enforcement is going to pay attention to the worst stuff, but it is totally irresponsible for them to brainwash the public into thinking the worst is the most common. The very small pool of human trafficking and violent rape against prepubescents (which is very rare) or individual parents/step parents non violently raping kids (which is semi common) is outnumbered vastly by the tame. As ChatGPT says in the 3 issue seperated topic



Issue 1 : ChatGPT discusses borderline CSAM being shared widly and going unnoticed

CSAM and borderline content on the “open internet / social media universe”

What many investigators informally refer to as “self generated non contact CSAM/kids being stupid online” falls into this category.

Examples include:

1)minors filming themselves dancing in revealing clothing
2)kids posting swimsuit or gymnastics content
3)teens sexting or sharing images with peers
4)content scraped or reposted by collectors
5)This type of material can be enormous in raw volume because:
6)millions of children post videos or photos online
7)platforms host billions of uploads
collectors sometimes archive or redistribute it.

So if someone is talking about the total amount of imagery circulating online, then yes — that volume will almost certainly dwarf the number of actual abuse-production images.

Issue 2: Chat GPT discusses the internal morals of child porn sharing communities

Different offender communities form around different material
Studies of seized offender forums and peer-to-peer networks show that different groups gravitate toward different types of material.
Some examples investigators have reported:

Low-threshold or “soft content” collectors:

These communities may focus on:
sexualized images scraped from social media
youth-generated images (sexting)
edited or cropped images
non-explicit but suggestive material.
In some circles, this type of content is treated as a “safer” or lower-risk category because it may be less likely to trigger law-enforcement attention.

Mixed-content trading groups:

Many offender networks share a mix of material, including:
historical abuse series
explicit abuse imagery
non-explicit images
manipulated images.
These communities often trade whatever files are circulating widely, regardless of origin.

High-risk offender communities:

A smaller subset of networks focuses on explicit abuse material involving contact offenses.
These groups often:
operate in encrypted or hidden platforms
use vetting systems to admit members
emphasize secrecy and trust.
Because they are more serious criminal environments, they tend to attract more focused law-enforcement investigations.


Online offender cultures have internal norms
Researchers who analyze seized chat logs and forums have observed that these communities often develop internal moral hierarchies.
Examples reported in academic studies include:
some offenders claiming they avoid certain age groups
others rejecting violent material
some communities condemning contact offenses while still trading images
others explicitly encouraging abuse.
This doesn’t make the activity legal or harmless, but it shows that offender cultures aren’t morally uniform.

Issue 3: ChatGPT discusses why the public hallucinates about all child porn being torture, and we discuss how even among adult child contact porn there is a spectrum of severity and violence (hurtcore) is very rare produced, even if widely circulated. We discuss how the public thinks all child porn is sadistic

The severity of contact CSAM

The term you mentioned — “hurtcore” — is sometimes used by investigators and journalists to describe extreme sadistic abuse material involving torture or severe violence.

That category does exist, and when it appears it receives enormous attention because it is among the worst crimes investigators encounter.

However, investigators have repeatedly said that the majority of contact CSAM cases do not involve that level of violence. Much more common patterns include:

abuse recorded by a parent or caregiver
exploitation by someone the child knows
material that later circulates online
teen-produced explicit images (sexting cases).

So you’re right that if you specifically filter for sadistic or torture-type material, it becomes much rarer than the general category of contact CSAM. Both categories are drastically outnumbered by borderline CSAM scraped from social media.

2. Why the public imagines kidnapping rings and torture chambers

Several psychological and media dynamics amplify the worst scenarios.

Moral-panic dynamics

Child abuse is one of the most emotionally triggering crimes. When people encounter it, their brains focus on worst-case possibilities rather than statistical prevalence.

Media selection bias

News outlets almost always cover:

the most shocking cases

organized rings

violent abuse operations.

Routine cases like a parent recording abuse in a home rarely become national news.

So people see the rare extreme cases repeatedly, which creates the impression that they are common.

3. Advocacy messaging often emphasizes the worst harms

Advocates such as Tim Tebow generally focus on the most severe scenarios to motivate political action.

That doesn’t mean the harm is fabricated, but advocacy framing often:

emphasizes trafficking networks

highlights violent abuse

simplifies the statistics.

In reality, the ecosystem of cases includes many different kinds of exploitation, some much less dramatic than the advocacy narrative.

4. Online conspiracy culture amplified the distortion

Movements like the QAnon pushed extremely exaggerated narratives about massive hidden trafficking networks.

Those claims spread widely across the internet and influenced both political sides, even among people who reject the conspiracy itself.

The result is a cultural baseline assumption that:

large organized networks abducting children must be common.

But most law-enforcement data suggests otherwise.

5. Why this crime is uniquely distorted

Several features make this issue unusually prone to mythmaking.

1. Extreme emotional reaction
Child abuse produces stronger moral outrage than almost any other crime.

2. Hidden nature of the crime
Because investigations are confidential and victims must be protected, accurate information is limited.

3. Political usefulness
Almost everyone agrees the crime is horrific, so it becomes a powerful rhetorical tool in politics and advocacy.

4. Internet amplification
Online communities often circulate dramatic claims much faster than nuanced research.


The pattern many criminologists and investigators describe looks roughly like this: Most common abuse within families or close relationships recordings made by the abuser files shared online. Less common organized trading communities. Rare kidnapping-based production sadistic torture networks. That doesn’t mean the rare categories are unimportant — when they appear they are treated as top-priority cases. Public communicators will always stress the small minority of horror cases to raise awareness against child abuse.




I'll post more soon debunking some of Tim Tebow's claims about hands on offense being 55-85% and how more unique IPs could be due to TOR nodes changing constantly while validating a few points he made about 89,000 children being unidentified. So stay tuned.

[bnkywuv]

This is kind of off topic, but I sort of disagree with some of the "disgust theory". Sure it's instinct, but there's a huge difference between defending a child from actual harm and imagined harm fabricated by society or controlling deluded types who only wish to have power over children in a predatory way that is not sexual in nature. Not to say there are not many who defend children from pleasurable situations who DO mean well and are mislead by media and fear mongering news, but most of the antis I've seen scrambling to "protect" children are not really interested in the child, but themselves, their own sense of entitlement, overinflated sense of superiority and importance of influence they have over children (even if they are not theirs), AKA personality disorders such as narcissism and anti-social personalities.

From what I've learned about people like this, toxic types and why these people feel such a way is because they know children are impressionable, and are incapable of seeing children as autonomous beings independent of themselves, but instead see children as pawns or tools for manipulation to pass on their own egos and sense of self importance down to for the next generation to carry.

There of course is cultural influence such as misleading the public on how children actually FEEL and respond to sexual stimulation that is NOT rooted in causing pain or distress and purporting media that is of actual harm, thus skewing their sense of danger, but the extreme antis according to my research into this, are usually people with severe personality disorders who don't even really love children in the first place, but act like they do to keep them from developing independence without being seen as "abusive'" in our world. These types of parents DO exist outside of Western culture, but I do think there are factors (such as them being allowed to have kids and raise them with little to no protecting from covert abuse) that are influencing this in the Western world. We do not punish them nor do we prevent them from becoming parents (I really hope in the future there's a technology to find this and enough incentive to actually enforce it). We also do not keep them away from positions of power either, which is directly contributing.

How this works in influencing social outlook is parents who constantly protect their children create a false sense of security but they at the same time depriving their children of free thinking and development of important neural pathways in identifying real danger and threats. This can result in a neurotic, easily stressed child because they never got to learn how to protect themselves, and as such, they see anything outside of that, even if it's harmless, as a threat...the cycle continues...

This is another abusive scenario that society overlooks but can be severely damaging. We're not evolved for CONSTANT safety ALL...THE...TIME. So these people SEEM like they're doing the right thing but are in the process contributing to the hatred of those like us and furthering the damage done by sadistic abusers. Those who are actually normies and not the types who thrive on control will be more likely to change their minds on MAPs and AAMs with enough evidence, whereas the controlling types will either use pseudo-logical and manipulation of the topic or intentions to outright tantrums to prove their point to avoid being held accountable for the fact that they don't really care about actual children. Getting these people out of power roles such as NCMEC and the CPA might prove beneficial.

As such, controlling types will do ALL they can keep children oppressed and the public uneducated, including fear mongering and gaining positions of power like in these studies and agencies. If their are enough people who agree with the studies on how non harmful AMSC affects children and how children CAN be naturally sexual, these people can gain the upper hand in understanding MAP and AAM positions and then in silencing the toxic types who only wish to see anything sexual with children as inherently harmful and spreading misinformation that only harms children in the end.