The true evil out there

[steve25805 126,021]

I haved moved this thread here because it is the sort of subject matter that belongs here...

It always both amazes, frustrates, and irritates me that our fetish - essentially harmless pee fun between consenting adults - is so frequently viewed as something terrible enough to warrant legal sanction. Just about the worst crime any of us ever do in terms of our fetish is maybe pee on some hotel carpet somewhere. Not cool, maybe, but hardly crime of the century. Especially when you consider what real evil is out there.

Amongst my more off-topic interests is an interest in criminal psychology and true crime. This has led me to true crime forums in the past, which have in turn opened my eyes to some of the horrors readily available on the surface web, sometimes in such innocuous places as Youtube. There is footage of animals being tortured to death, and people too, including one clip of a screaming 16 year old girl being burned alive by vigilantes in Latin America. And that's just on Youtube! A site freely available to anyone as young as 13! There are also numerous so-called gore sites legally available for the "pleasure" of weirdo's who enjoy watching such things. Some of those who do have respectable jobs and appear to live otherwise respectable lives, yet they take gruesome pleasure in watching other people suffering or dying horribly. And all that is readily available on the surface web. A simple google search could find any of it within minutes if not seconds.

But recently, a discussion came up about the so-called "deep web" or "dark web", a deeper level of the internet inaccessible to normal search engines. Special search engines such as TOR are required to access it, which also supposedly help shield accessors and suppliers from identification.

I did a little reasearch. Of course, there was no way I was ever going to to even attempt to go into the deep web. I have my sanity, mental health, sense of right and wrong and desire to remain free of legal hassles to think about. But I have spent quite a bit of time reading up about it, and reading the accounts of those who claim to have been there and seen some of the stuff available. A bit like the debate that used to be had about the alleged existence of so-called "snuff" films, the jury is still out in regards to how much of this is real and how much urban legend. Hopefully, a lot of it is the latter. I certainly hope so.

Of course, paedophiles exploit the deep web to sell or share images and vids of children being abused or even killed. Recently an Australian guy called Peter Scully was arrested for putting out live streaming child abuse and murder on the deep web, with clients in Europe, the UK and the USA paying anything from $100 to $10,000 to view the abuse as it happened and be able to direct it. Women were involved in the abuse as well as men. Some children were killed. That this is not urban myth is known because the police have found the videos! The trial is pending. Other stuff about this guy's evil work has been said which may or may not be true. One of his supposed films - "Dafu Love" - is so utterly sick and twisted that I won't even describe it, but many regard this one as urban myth.

Away from the paedo stuff, some of the other shit whose existence is often hinted at or claimed to have been seen, is so called "Red Room" stuff, where wealthy customers allegedly pay large sums of money to watch live streaming of a victim being tortured to death, with the highest bidder able to direct the torture. Said to include disembowlment, burning, skinning, slow dismemberment, whipping and beating. Urban myth? Perhaps. But sadly, there are people out there capable of doing absolutely anything for money, and there are a small minority of very wealthy people who are just evil. Supply and demand. So perhaps not.

Supposedly, there are also deep web file sharing sites whose theme is horrific animal abuse, where members upload and share pics and vids of themselves horrifically torturing and/or killing animals.

Other sites purport to be selling the services of hitmen so you can pay to have anyone killed in any way you want - though according to most accounts, most such sites are scams with the person attempting to pay for the killing being himself or herself scammed. In most cases it seems, the money changes hands and nothing happens, or the person who paid the money for a killing is themselves blackmailed.

There is so much more. But I think you get the picture.

What gets me is why is our fetish considered so unacceptable when there are so many much more horrific and truly depraved individuals exploiting the internet and feeding off it? Why can't the powers that be leave us alone and target the real sick bastards and bitches out there?

I'd welcome any comments from anyone more internet savvy than me, and from anyone who has had any kind of experience in law enforcement and has anything more concrete or informed to add to any of this.

[F.W 5,734]

Society has never been at ease with its attitude to porn,or prostitution..in general,both tend to be frowned upon.Surely,its about individual freedom.If i choose to visit a prostitute for my own gratification,and i treat her respectfully,and then go home feeling all well,then what harm do i do?Obviously,theres a public health issue,if either of us has any STDs,and pass them on,but that can happen in "normal" sex anyway.Of course,though,no-one uses them do they?Or pornography,as long as all the actors are over 18,and well paid,then wheres the harm?In relation to peeing,yes,if your fetish leads you to follow women into public toilets,etc,then thats wrong.Its all online,just enjoy.I find the worst kind of porn,is that that society deems acceptable,such as page 3 girls,which i do agree ARE demeaning to women,because with porn,its there only if you seek to view it,whereas in a newspaper its "in your face" like it or not.(i dont read the red tops anyway)Or the kind of blatant sexual romps that are common in "soap operas" these days.I also dislike any sexual behaviour in mainstream movies,beyond a bit of slap and tickle kind of thing.No,if you want porn,you should have to access it properly.Child porn is revolting and they should be castrated with rusty penknives.

[Formyeyes 175]

It always both amazes, frustrates, and irritates me that our fetish - essentially harmless pee fun between consenting adults - is so frequently viewed as something terrible enough to warrant legal sanction. Just about the worst crime any of us ever do in terms of our fetish is maybe pee on some hotel carpet somewhere. Not cool, maybe, but hardly crime of the century. Especially when you consider what real evil is out there.

Amongst my more off-topic interests is an interest in criminal psychology and true crime. This has led me to true crime forums in the past, which have in turn opened my eyes to some of the horrors readily available on the surface web, sometimes in such innocuous places as Youtube. There is footage of animals being tortured to death, and people too, including one clip of a screaming 16 year old girl being burned alive by vigilantes in Latin America. And that's just on Youtube! A site freely available to anyone as young as 13! There are also numerous so-called gore sites legally available for the "pleasure" of weirdo's who enjoy watching such things. Some of those who do have respectable jobs and appear to live otherwise respectable lives, yet they take gruesome pleasure in watching other people suffering or dying horribly. And all that is readily available on the surface web. A simple google search could find any of it within minutes if not seconds.

But recently, a discussion came up about the so-called "deep web" or "dark web", a deeper level of the internet inaccessible to normal search engines. Special search engines such as TOR are required to access it, which also supposedly help shield accessors and suppliers from identification.

I did a little reasearch. Of course, there was no way I was ever going to to even attempt to go into the deep web. I have my sanity, mental health, sense of right and wrong and desire to remain free of legal hassles to think about. But I have spent quite a bit of time reading up about it, and reading the accounts of those who claim to have been there and seen some of the stuff available. A bit like the debate that used to be had about the alleged existence of so-called "snuff" films, the jury is still out in regards to how much of this is real and how much urban legend. Hopefully, a lot of it is the latter. I certainly hope so.

Of course, paedophiles exploit the deep web to sell or share images and vids of children being abused or even killed. Recently an Australian guy called Peter Scully was arrested for putting out live streaming child abuse and murder on the deep web, with clients in Europe, the UK and the USA paying anything from $100 to $10,000 to view the abuse as it happened and be able to direct it. Women were involved in the abuse as well as men. Some children were killed. That this is not urban myth is known because the police have found the videos! The trial is pending. Other stuff about this guy's evil work has been said which may or may not be true. One of his supposed films - "Dafu Love" - is so utterly sick and twisted that I won't even describe it, but many regard this one as urban myth.

Away from the paedo stuff, some of the other shit whose existence is often hinted at or claimed to have been seen, is so called "Red Room" stuff, where wealthy customers allegedly pay large sums of money to watch live streaming of a victim being tortured to death, with the highest bidder able to direct the torture. Said to include disembowlment, burning, skinning, slow dismemberment, whipping and beating. Urban myth? Perhaps. But sadly, there are people out there capable of doing absolutely anything for money, and there are a small minority of very wealthy people who are just evil. Supply and demand. So perhaps not.

Supposedly, there are also deep web file sharing sites whose theme is horrific animal abuse, where members upload and share pics and vids of themselves horrifically torturing and/or killing animals.

Other sites purport to be selling the services of hitmen so you can pay to have anyone killed in any way you want - though according to most accounts, most such sites are scams with the person attempting to pay for the killing being himself or herself scammed. In most cases it seems, the money changes hands and nothing happens, or the person who paid the money for a killing is themselves blackmailed.

There is so much more. But I think you get the picture.

What gets me is why is our fetish considered so unacceptable when there are so many much more horrific and truly depraved individuals exploiting the internet and feeding off it? Why can't the powers that be leave us alone and target the real sick bastards and bitches out there?

I'd welcome any comments from anyone more internet savvy than me, and from anyone who has had any kind of experience in law enforcement and has anything more concrete or informed to add to any of this.

I will fully admit that I have fetishes beyond peeing and most of them seem immoral. I have done gore play with my partners as well as stage rape scenes with my partners with safe words and signals as well as constant checkups to see if their still doing okay. No fetish is wrong in and of itself, and yes in my opinion that includes pedophilia. Child pornography is completely immoral but the fetish isn't exactly something you can just turn off, as I'm sure we all know. Dafu love and videos similar are terrible because their real, and they actually happened. Now there's gore porn online and some of it certainly unsettling to some extents but as long as it's staged and people are consenting there's no problem with that. It's like assuming people on this website just go out in public and piss on people without their consent, it doesn't really happen (at least to my knowledge).

[steve25805 126,021]

I will fully admit that I have fetishes beyond peeing and most of them seem immoral. I have done gore play with my partners as well as stage rape scenes with my partners with safe words and signals as well as constant checkups to see if their still doing okay. No fetish is wrong in and of itself, and yes in my opinion that includes pedophilia. Child pornography is completely immoral but the fetish isn't exactly something you can just turn off, as I'm sure we all know. Dafu love and videos similar are terrible because their real, and they actually happened. Now there's gore porn online and some of it certainly unsettling to some extents but as long as it's staged and people are consenting there's no problem with that. It's like assuming people on this website just go out in public and piss on people without their consent, it doesn't really happen (at least to my knowledge).

For me, if it involves injury or death being inflicted, or it involves non-consenting adults or minors, then it crosses a line into unacceptability. And any fantasy that involves paedophilia is highly dangerous potentially, and beyond the pale for me too. However, gore play - whatever that involves - between consenting adults and staged rape also between consenting adults is perhaps no different than S&M between consenting adults in moral terms. If consent takes place and no one is coming to any permanent harm, it is no one else's places to judge.

Take S&M as an example again. The whole fantasy of that fetish is often predicated on the notion of non-consent, with sadists and masochists often pretending, role-playing, non-consent. But consent exists in reality, with participants using safe words and so on, having consented in advance and both gaining pleasure from it. If the person on the receiving end of sexual sadism has consented to that beforehand, and gains pleasure from it and can make it stop at any time via a safeword, then neither I nor anyone else should ever have a moral problem with it. I suppose it's the same with rape-play fantasies and so on. Indeed, my love of girls pissing on hotel carpets and shit like that might even be considered more morally questionable.

But fantasies which include a fantasised and pretended element of non-consent can become dangerous if the participants really do develop serious intentions of doing stuff to unwilling victims for real. The vast majority of fetishists never cross that line of course but it has been known. Recently in America three S&M fetishists - one male and two female - were convicted of the torture and murder of a beautiful young woman. They had long nurtured fantasies of kidnap, torture and murder of an unwilling victim as part of their fantasy world, and when they developed some kind of grudge against their eventual victim, on the pretext of revenge or some shit like that, they decided it would be a great idea to get off on doing it to her for real. Their victim was not only non-consenting and in no way interested in S&M or in being tortured, but she actually ended up dead as part of the perpetrators' ultimate thrill.

So in any fantasies that imagine harm or non-consent, there needs to be a very clear line between fantasy and reality, that must never ever be crossed.

As far as shit like this "Dafu Love" bollocks goes, this supposedly involves babies being brutally killed for fun, though majority opinion out there is that the film does not actually exist and is an internet myth, or that if it does exist it is faked. But if something like that actually did exist for real, of course as you concede it would be utterly horrendous and evil, and in my view unacceptably twisted as well. But....even if faked.....any imagery like that which shows babies or other children being killed for fun so that others can get off on it, is totally unacceptable for me. I just think that if someone's mind works in such a way that they can get off on imagery showing babies being killed for fun, even if it isn't actually real, then they have a level of deviance that goes beyond the acceptable and is potentially highly dangerous, for which such a person should seek help.

[Bobby boy 124]

For me, if it involves injury or death being inflicted, or it involves non-consenting adults or minors, then it crosses a line into unacceptability. And any fantasy that involves paedophilia is highly dangerous potentially, and beyond the pale for me too. However, gore play - whatever that involves - between consenting adults and staged rape also between consenting adults is perhaps no different than S&M between consenting adults in moral terms. If consent takes place and no one is coming to any permanent harm, it is no one else's places to judge.

Take S&M as an example again. The whole fantasy of that fetish is often predicated on the notion of non-consent, with sadists and masochists often pretending, role-playing, non-consent. But consent exists in reality, with participants using safe words and so on, having consented in advance and both gaining pleasure from it. If the person on the receiving end of sexual sadism has consented to that beforehand, and gains pleasure from it and can make it stop at any time via a safeword, then neither I nor anyone else should ever have a moral problem with it. I suppose it's the same with rape-play fantasies and so on. Indeed, my love of girls pissing on hotel carpets and shit like that might even be considered more morally questionable.

But fantasies which include a fantasised and pretended element of non-consent can become dangerous if the participants really do develop serious intentions of doing stuff to unwilling victims for real. The vast majority of fetishists never cross that line of course but it has been known. Recently in America three S&M fetishists - one male and two female - were convicted of the torture and murder of a beautiful young woman. They had long nurtured fantasies of kidnap, torture and murder of an unwilling victim as part of their fantasy world, and when they developed some kind of grudge against their eventual victim, on the pretext of revenge or some shit like that, they decided it would be a great idea to get off on doing it to her for real. Their victim was not only non-consenting and in no way interested in S&M or in being tortured, but she actually ended up dead as part of the perpetrators' ultimate thrill.

So in any fantasies that imagine harm or non-consent, there needs to be a very clear line between fantasy and reality, that must never ever be crossed.

As far as shit like this "Dafu Love" bollocks goes, this supposedly involves babies being brutally killed for fun, though majority opinion out there is that the film does not actually exist and is an internet myth, or that if it does exist it is faked. But if something like that actually did exist for real, of course as you concede it would be utterly horrendous and evil, and in my view unacceptably twisted as well. But....even if faked.....any imagery like that which shows babies or other children being killed for fun so that others can get off on it, is totally unacceptable for me. I just think that if someone's mind works in such a way that they can get off on imagery showing babies being killed for fun, even if it isn't actually real, then they have a level of deviance that goes beyond the acceptable and is potentially highly dangerous, for which such a person should seek help.

I've seen things on Facebook I consider much worse than this fetish of ours , like deliberately hurting animals,

[steve25805 126,021]

I've seen things on Facebook I consider much worse than this fetish of ours , like deliberately hurting animals,

Me too.

There is even a video on Youtube, which has also appeared on Facebook, showing a bunch of vigilantes in South America burning a screaming 16 year old girl alive!

Now society thinks that's ok, apparently, yet if her breast had - for example - become exposed during her terrible ordeal it would suddenly have become too shocking to show!!!

Now think about that sense of priorities for a moment. Is that not totally fucked up? I mean, WTF?

How can society have the gall to condemn harmless fetishes like ours - even try to use the law against us - when it is perfectly ok to show twisted shit like that on sites open to 13 year olds!!!?

[Sexismygod 1,782]

Hypocrisy can be seen without enduring the kinds of imagery you describe, Steve. The same twisted balance is alive and well in your local cinema.

Have you ever noticed how the ratings work? Violence will result in a 12 rating. Gratuitous violence moves it to 15. An exposed breast starts at 15 and goes to 18 (Adult) if the nudity is frequent. Sex is simply unacceptable for films.

The film industry is unanimous. Depictions of simple nudity and more damaging than decapitation, disembowelment, and all bullets & bombs you can eat. A breast gets the same rating as a bullet in the brain. To me, that's bass ackwards.

[Pete2304 36]

Apologies for bumping this one but what sanctions Steve? I didn't know there were any although I do remember seeing something a few months about an Internet block on pornography in the UK. Which I found patronising to say the least, if not a bit worrying really. Peodaphilia is disgraceful, along with a few other things that have surfaced on the internet over the years but I'm a big boy, if I want to watch a video of a consenting adult who has decided to take her clothes off then that should be up to me.

[steve25805 126,021]

It is technically illegal now in the UK to possess - and certainly to produce or participate in - certain categories of consenting adult pornography, including watersports and golden showers, though solo pissing is still ok.

What the actual legal sanctions are I do not know. They probably range from mere confiscation at one end of the scale up to actual jail time at the other, at the discretion of a judge. Mere possession would most likely result in confiscation or at worst a small fine - unless it were something truly heinous - though this is tyrannical enough when it comes to harmless consenting adult stuff. Actual production of it is much more likely to result in a stiffer fine or jail time, and in the offending website being taken down.

In practice, though, enforcement will tend to be very random and arbitrary because the police generally have better things to worry about than consenting adult stuff.

I do wonder if this law is part of the reason the original Admin sold up. As someone based in the UK, and hosting a pee forum within the UK, perhaps he personally, and the forum in general, was potentially vulnerable to some crusade by narrowminds to have the law used against us? Now that the owner of the site is based outside the UK, and the site is hosted from outside the UK, it is outside the scope of UK law, which only covers material owned, accessed, or produced within the UK .Always wondered if this in part lay behind his decision to sell, protecting both himself and the forum.

[Pete2304 36]

I think certainly in terms of prosecution, you are right in the police having more important things to be concerned about. I saw a Panorama ( I think it was that) report showing a CID officer bring up a live map of how many people in the were looking at child pornography right at that minute and he said we don't have resources to even arrest 10% of these people. I think consenting adults having a bit of watersports fun and posting it online will be so far down their list of priorities it will never be an issue for anybody. It's been illegal to smoke in a car if you have children with you for a few months but read only a couple of weeks ago nobody so far has been fined for that yet. Not that I'm condoning it, I smoke but wouldn't do in front of my little man but it's hardly crime of the century, police have more pressing things to deal with

That being said, you could be right about the sites, certainly not a business you would rush into at the minute, given the legislations you've mentioned. It is ridiculous though.

Still it's one bit of legislation they wouldn't have faced much argument on, can't see any MP standing up in Parliament arguing that if he wants to watch two people piss on each other then he bloody well should be allowed to!!!

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

Hmmm, I had a look at this. According to the last Australian Pornography update, everything on here is classed as "Refused Classification" and when you try to find what RC covers, the part that covers our interest, it's basically something that's "morally wrong"

We can legally have RC material, you just cannot show it to anyone, however, in Western Australia having such material is a $10k AUD offence. This also applies to the border areas of Northen Territory, wherever they are.

Another thing, last time we were out of the country, when we returned, the laptop as well as the USB expansion drive, were taken away to check for illegal content, strangely though, they never looked at the files on the camera memory cards (64 gig x 4), don't know if it was an oversight or a privacy issue. Archiving (zipping) large files with a password, or encrypting the entire laptop (bit locker) doesn't work either, you're "invited" into an interview room to unlock the thing. Failure to do so will see the thing confiscated.

This all seems like rubbish to me, anyone with a good internet connection can get what ever they want. Add a dedicated pc running Tails (TOR) on a multiple exit vpn can get everything the Internet has to offer with pretty much total anonymity. Getting caught with illegal content will be your problem as everyone has seen on the news.

[Adyguy6970 877]

I haved moved this thread here because it is the sort of subject matter that belongs here...

It always both amazes, frustrates, and irritates me that our fetish - essentially harmless pee fun between consenting adults - is so frequently viewed as something terrible enough to warrant legal sanction. Just about the worst crime any of us ever do in terms of our fetish is maybe pee on some hotel carpet somewhere. Not cool, maybe, but hardly crime of the century. Especially when you consider what real evil is out there.

Amongst my more off-topic interests is an interest in criminal psychology and true crime. This has led me to true crime forums in the past, which have in turn opened my eyes to some of the horrors readily available on the surface web, sometimes in such innocuous places as Youtube. There is footage of animals being tortured to death, and people too, including one clip of a screaming 16 year old girl being burned alive by vigilantes in Latin America. And that's just on Youtube! A site freely available to anyone as young as 13! There are also numerous so-called gore sites legally available for the "pleasure" of weirdo's who enjoy watching such things. Some of those who do have respectable jobs and appear to live otherwise respectable lives, yet they take gruesome pleasure in watching other people suffering or dying horribly. And all that is readily available on the surface web. A simple google search could find any of it within minutes if not seconds.

But recently, a discussion came up about the so-called "deep web" or "dark web", a deeper level of the internet inaccessible to normal search engines. Special search engines such as TOR are required to access it, which also supposedly help shield accessors and suppliers from identification.

I did a little reasearch. Of course, there was no way I was ever going to to even attempt to go into the deep web. I have my sanity, mental health, sense of right and wrong and desire to remain free of legal hassles to think about. But I have spent quite a bit of time reading up about it, and reading the accounts of those who claim to have been there and seen some of the stuff available. A bit like the debate that used to be had about the alleged existence of so-called "snuff" films, the jury is still out in regards to how much of this is real and how much urban legend. Hopefully, a lot of it is the latter. I certainly hope so.

Of course, paedophiles exploit the deep web to sell or share images and vids of children being abused or even killed. Recently an Australian guy called Peter Scully was arrested for putting out live streaming child abuse and murder on the deep web, with clients in Europe, the UK and the USA paying anything from $100 to $10,000 to view the abuse as it happened and be able to direct it. Women were involved in the abuse as well as men. Some children were killed. That this is not urban myth is known because the police have found the videos! The trial is pending. Other stuff about this guy's evil work has been said which may or may not be true. One of his supposed films - "Dafu Love" - is so utterly sick and twisted that I won't even describe it, but many regard this one as urban myth.

Away from the paedo stuff, some of the other shit whose existence is often hinted at or claimed to have been seen, is so called "Red Room" stuff, where wealthy customers allegedly pay large sums of money to watch live streaming of a victim being tortured to death, with the highest bidder able to direct the torture. Said to include disembowlment, burning, skinning, slow dismemberment, whipping and beating. Urban myth? Perhaps. But sadly, there are people out there capable of doing absolutely anything for money, and there are a small minority of very wealthy people who are just evil. Supply and demand. So perhaps not.

Supposedly, there are also deep web file sharing sites whose theme is horrific animal abuse, where members upload and share pics and vids of themselves horrifically torturing and/or killing animals.

Other sites purport to be selling the services of hitmen so you can pay to have anyone killed in any way you want - though according to most accounts, most such sites are scams with the person attempting to pay for the killing being himself or herself scammed. In most cases it seems, the money changes hands and nothing happens, or the person who paid the money for a killing is themselves blackmailed.

There is so much more. But I think you get the picture.

What gets me is why is our fetish considered so unacceptable when there are so many much more horrific and truly depraved individuals exploiting the internet and feeding off it? Why can't the powers that be leave us alone and target the real sick bastards and bitches out there?

I'd welcome any comments from anyone more internet savvy than me, and from anyone who has had any kind of experience in law enforcement and has anything more concrete or informed to add to any of this.

I think it's a case of 'low hanging fruit' if you know what I mean. It's often a good deal easier to target things which some people find uncongenial but are essentially harmless than tackle the supply of material which does serious harm to minds, bodies and society.

[Bobby boy 124]

I think it's a case of 'low hanging fruit' if you know what I mean. It's often a good deal easier to target things which some people find uncongenial but are essentially harmless than tackle the supply of material which does serious harm to minds, bodies and society.

I'm having trouble keeping awake , !!!