Does 'rape culture' accurately describe (many) societies?

[theprestige]

You guys are really enthusiastic about strangulation porn if only the actors exhibit enthusiasm (or are even overly enthusiastic) about it. It seems to have had quite an impact on you, so tell us more! How exactly did she express being overly enthusiastic about being strangulated? Or was she the strangulator and not the strangulatee? In that case: same question!

Who are those people "who rage about finding rape porn (or underage porn) everywhere" but "are just telling us what they've been searching for before?" Anybody we know? Or are you telling us that my links to the articles and reports I quoted in my most recent post only mention that "strangulation has become normalized" and is "linked to the influence of online pornography" because the writers have been searching for strangulation porn, and now they write reports rabidly protesting against it because they're trying to avoid suspicions of being into (underage?) rape porn?
I'm surprised that your search history resulted in finding a VHS tape with an example of overly enthusiastic strangulation! That's a new one.

But, of course, you yourself only "know there is some rape porn, because [you're] told so."
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Unlike 20-25 years ago, nowadays it's actually possible to google for "strangulation" + "porn" without a single porn site popping up! Back in the day, I made the mistake of having my high-school students search for "Oscar Wilde" when we were reading The Importance of Being Earnest, and some of the first links to pop up were about British porn star Wilde Oscar! That doesn't happen anymore. Some of the algorithms have actually improved internet searches.
Or it could be because Oscar has retired.

At this point I'm beginning to think that this insistence on bringing the question or rape culture back around to questionable pornography one has encountered is a case of people telling on themselves, more than it is any rational contribution to the thread.

We were just talking about a prosecutor and a judge that helped a rapist get away with a slap on the wrist, and dann has already dragged the discussion back around to pornography.

You'd expect a turbo-marxist to home right in on a matter of wealth and power overriding justice, but no. Instead we're treated to dann's latest investigation into choking porn. Like, guy. Come on. Nobody needed you to investigate choking porn. But here you are.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You guys are really enthusiastic about strangulation porn if only the actors exhibit enthusiasm (or are even overly enthusiastic) about it. It seems to have had quite an impact on you, so tell us more! How exactly did she express being overly enthusiastic about being strangulated? Or was she the strangulator and not the strangulatee? In that case: same question!

Dumb attempt at browbeating duly noted, BUT:

I mean, strangling your partner or household member is a felony. For example, in Wyoming, since we discussed that state's laws already in a different thread, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years. Even just putting your hand over her mouth and nose qualifies. See statute 6-2-509. It doesn't even say consensual, but I guess if she called the cops it wasn't.

And that's if it doesn't get upgraded to attempted murder. Then it can go up to 20 years for second degree, or life for first degree. It's the same range as for actual murder, minus the death penalty, which is only for a successful one.

So your fake outrage is based on... what exactly? That enough people would be convinced by porn to commit a major felony? Are you the kind of scold who also thinks that the Ocean movies makes people commit burglary and grand larceny? That Rambo makes people try to kill the police? That people will go rape someone if they read The Fountainhead? That playing Postal makes people go shoot up the town? That D&D or Harry Potter make people worship Satan? Or WHAT?

WTH more do you want, really? It's already explicitly illegal. Regardless of whether one has a fetish about attempting murder, it's ALREADY illegal and carries SEVERE penalties.

Which, to return to the title topic means, no, our culture doesn't normalise that. We in fact forbid it. If most people thought it was ok, those laws would be repealed already.

So WTH imaginary problem are you even having?

 

[Poem]

Dumb attempt at browbeating duly noted, BUT:

I mean, strangling your partner or household member is a felony. For example, in Wyoming, since we discussed that state's laws already in a different thread, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years. Even just putting your hand over her mouth and nose qualifies. See statute 6-2-509. It doesn't even say consensual, but I guess if she called the cops it wasn't.

And that's if it doesn't get upgraded to attempted murder. Then it can go up to 20 years for second degree, or life for first degree. It's the same range as for actual murder, minus the death penalty, which is only for a successful one.

So your fake outrage is based on... what exactly? That enough people would be convinced by porn to commit a major felony? Are you the kind of scold who also thinks that the Ocean movies makes people commit burglary and grand larceny? That Rambo makes people try to kill the police? That people will go rape someone if they read The Fountainhead? That playing Postal makes people go shoot up the town? That D&D or Harry Potter make people worship Satan? Or WHAT?

WTH more do you want, really? It's already explicitly illegal. Regardless of whether one has a fetish about attempting murder, it's ALREADY illegal and carries SEVERE penalties.

Which, to return to the title topic means, no, our culture doesn't normalise that. We in fact forbid it. If most people thought it was ok, those laws would be repealed already.

So WTH imaginary problem are you even having?

Nobody was murdered or raped in the movies referenced - but real sex does occur in porn. Add on the strangulation or violence part (which might be real or simulated) then there are dark consequences:
Sexual strangulation has become popular – but that doesn’t mean it’s wanted (Durham University, 26 September 2024)

 

[Poem]

At this point I'm beginning to think that this insistence on bringing the question or rape culture back around to questionable pornography one has encountered is a case of people telling on themselves, more than it is any rational contribution to the thread.

We were just talking about a prosecutor and a judge that helped a rapist get away with a slap on the wrist, and dann has already dragged the discussion back around to pornography.

You'd expect a turbo-marxist to home right in on a matter of wealth and power overriding justice, but no. Instead we're treated to dann's latest investigation into choking porn. Like, guy. Come on. Nobody needed you to investigate choking porn. But here you are.

In the same way a judge may by influenced by a bias to their own 'class' (specifically: social capital), they might also be influenced by what porn, if any, they get off on. Rape myths are a thing.

 

[dann]

Dumb attempt at browbeating duly noted, BUT:
I mean, strangling your partner or household member is a felony. For example, in Wyoming, since we discussed that state's laws already in a different thread, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years. Even just putting your hand over her mouth and nose qualifies. See statute 6-2-509. It doesn't even say consensual, but I guess if she called the cops it wasn't.
And that's if it doesn't get upgraded to attempted murder. Then it can go up to 20 years for second degree, or life for first degree. It's the same range as for actual murder, minus the death penalty, which is only for a successful one.

And yet strangulation has become so common in (otherwise 'vanilla') porn that it may lead inexperienced people to think that it's a normal aspect of sexual intercourse.

So your fake outrage is based on... what exactly? That enough people would be convinced by porn to commit a major felony? Are you the kind of scold who also thinks that the Ocean movies makes people commit burglary and grand larceny? That Rambo makes people try to kill the police? That people will go rape someone if they read The Fountainhead? That playing Postal makes people go shoot up the town? That D&D or Harry Potter make people worship Satan? Or WHAT?

My outrage is not fake. It's entirely genuine. And yes, when porn makes it seem as if strangulation during sex is a perfectly natural thing, it may convince people to strangulate their own partners during sex IRL. Got it?! Look at my quotations, look at my links!

WTH more do you want, really? It's already explicitly illegal. Regardless of whether one has a fetish about attempting murder, it's ALREADY illegal and carries SEVERE penalties.

Are you saying that strangulation in porn and what those articles I link to describe doesn't exist because it's illegal? Is strangulation in porn illegal? If it were, this article wouldn't say that in "June 2025 the UK Government announced that depiction of strangulation within pornography will be banned."
Is it illegal in the USA? In Wisconsin? I doubt it, but feel free to convince me that it is.
Don't pretend to be more ignorant than you actually are.

Which, to return to the title topic means, no, our culture doesn't normalise that. We in fact forbid it. If most people thought it was ok, those laws would be repealed already.
So WTH imaginary problem are you even having?

Again: No, I don't think strangulation in porn is forbidden, which was what I was talking about.
Alternatively, tell me about the strangulation porn video where a Wyoming sheriff shows up in the middle of the act and arrests the guy (or gal) doing the strangulation! (That'll teach them!) Or at least a sex educator who sits down on the edge of the bed and tells that it isn't something people should do and they may get arrested if it continues.
It's against the ISF rules to post a link to those hypothetical videos, which is why I stress: Just tell me about them. I don't want you to get in trouble.

 

[dann]

Nobody was murdered or raped in the movies referenced - but real sex does occur in porn. Add on the strangulation or violence part (which might be real or simulated) then there are dark consequences:
Sexual strangulation has become popular – but that doesn’t mean it’s wanted (Durham University, 26 September 2024)

Notice that nobody commented on the Durham article when I posted it or on any of my other links.
It's so much easier to simply ignore them and pretend that the whole thing is something I imagined and that it doesn't exist IRL.

 

[dann]

At this point I'm beginning to think that this insistence on bringing the question or rape culture back around to questionable pornography one has encountered is a case of people telling on themselves, more than it is any rational contribution to the thread.
We were just talking about a prosecutor and a judge that helped a rapist get away with a slap on the wrist, and dann has already dragged the discussion back around to pornography.
You'd expect a turbo-marxist to home right in on a matter of wealth and power overriding justice, but no. Instead we're treated to dann's latest investigation into choking porn. Like, guy. Come on. Nobody needed you to investigate choking porn. But here you are.

You were talking about a prosecutor and a judge to distract from the connection between rape culture and porn.
It is not at all unexpected to see a turbo-conservative ignoring anything that has to do with the correlation between strangulation porn and strangulation being practiced IRL sex.
You are very busy trying to come up with other names and explanations for it: "strangulation play," "consensual sex," "Rape isn't ordinary sex." Implied: strangulation 'play', on the other hand, is ordinary sex. It actually isn't, but it is being normalized by strangulation porn, which is what my links were about. "The topic is rape culture, not consensual sex culture."

I have noticed you lean in this direction as soon as subjugation and sex is mentioned, e.g. in the question why some people want to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with them. You trivialize strangulation in porn as if there were no connection between rape and strangulation. I wouldn't be surprised if your next move would be to come up with the term consensual rape play, you know, good old fun for the whole family in the suburban dungeon.

Your prosecutor and judge may be very good examples of rape culture. I don't know. I didn't look into the case, and I'm not going to. There are so many other examples of subjugation and submission in current society that it's impossible to run out of examples. You elected a goddamn rapist as president! Twice! And you yourself are so fond of people submitting themselves to tyrants that you recommended that my country should give in to Trump (which it already did far too much by joining the Coalition of the Willing).

I'm going to continue to point out that rape and strangulation in porn is rape culture, but don't worry: I don't really give a ◊◊◊◊ about people whose sex life has already become oriented towards strangulation. I won't try to interfere with their activities. I'm not even presenting an argument for banning it. They are probably incapable of overcoming that warping of their sex drive anyway, so it makes it safer for everybody else if 'tops' and 'bottoms' find each other online or elsewhere for consensual strangulation 'play'. By the way, notice how the word in itself hints at its infantile origins.)

 

[Poem]

Notice that nobody commented on the Durham article when I posted it or on any of my other links.
It's so much easier to simply ignore them and pretend that the whole thing is something I imagined and that it doesn't exist IRL.

Apologies for that - I skimmed your post (this has come up before).

 

[Poem]

You were talking about a prosecutor and a judge to distract from the connection between rape culture and porn.
It is not at all unexpected to see a turbo-conservative ignoring anything that has to do with the correlation between strangulation porn and strangulation being practiced IRL sex.
You are very busy trying to come up with other names and explanations for it: "strangulation play," "consensual sex," "Rape isn't ordinary sex." Implied: strangulation 'play', on the other hand, is ordinary sex. It actually isn't, but it is being normalized by strangulation porn, which is what my links were about. "The topic is rape culture, not consensual sex culture."

I have noticed you lean in this direction as soon as subjugation and sex is mentioned, e.g. in the question why some people want to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with them. You trivialize strangulation in porn as if there were no connection between rape and strangulation. I wouldn't be surprised if your next move would be to come up with the term consensual rape play, you know, good old fun for the whole family in the suburban dungeon.

Your prosecutor and judge may be very good examples of rape culture. I don't know. I didn't look into the case, and I'm not going to. There are so many other examples of subjugation and submission in current society that it's impossible to run out of examples. You elected a goddamn rapist as president! Twice! And you yourself are so fond of people submitting themselves to tyrants that you recommended that my country should give in to Trump (which it already did far too much by joining the Coalition of the Willing).

I'm going to continue to point out that rape and strangulation in porn is rape culture, but don't worry: I don't really give a ◊◊◊◊ about people whose sex life has already become oriented towards strangulation. I won't try to interfere with their activities. I'm not even presenting an argument for banning it. They are probably incapable of overcoming that warping of their sex drive anyway, so it makes it safer for everybody else if 'tops' and 'bottoms' find each other online or elsewhere for consensual strangulation 'play'. By the way, notice how the word in itself hints at its infantile origins.)

BTW: Trump was convicted in a civil court.

Tops and bottoms?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And yet strangulation has become so common in (otherwise 'vanilla') porn that it may lead inexperienced people to think that it's a normal aspect of sexual intercourse.

It MIGHT. In the same way as watching Western movies might make people think it's normal to play Cowboys and Indians with real guns and ammo, or watching Vikings might make someone want to go plunder England, or watching Beauty And The Beast might convice someone that bestiality is ok, or watching Megadeth's "Symphony Of Destruction" clip might make someone believe it's ok to shoot the president

So? You can't forbid every form of entertainment that might mislead a schizophrenic into thinking reality doesn't apply. Then we wouldn't even have playing tag left, since it might convince someone it's ok to chase someone else and lay hands on them

Is strangulation in porn illegal?

Pssst. Newsflash: Porn movies are just that: movies. It's actors consensually playing a role within safe parameters and being paid for it.

Hate to break it to you, but Michael C Hall (the actor of Dexter) wasn't actually a serial killer, Bryan Cranston (of Breaking Bad) didn't actually deal drugs, and Jenna Davis (who played M3GAN) wasn't really a generative AI robot

The same applies to porn movies. Most actors and actresses playing gay or lesbian roles also aren't actually into that, for example. In fact for male gay roles it's mostly a matter of looking good enough to be attractive to gay viewers and it paying better than straight sex if they are.

Again: No, I don't think strangulation in porn is forbidden, which was what I was talking about.

Neither is showing someone shooting someone else in a movie or series, nor is showing organised crime. So what? What's on screen is on screen.

 

[dann]

Apologies for that - I skimmed your post (this has come up before).

No reason to apologize. And like I said, I haven't really looked at this thread for a couple of years, so I apologize for whatever I may bring up that has already been mentioned.

 

[Poem]

It MIGHT. In the same way as watching Western movies might make people think it's normal to play Cowboys and Indians with real guns and ammo, or watching Vikings might make someone want to go plunder England, or watching Beauty And The Beast might convice someone that bestiality is ok, or watching Megadeth's "Symphony Of Destruction" clip might make someone believe it's ok to shoot the president

So? You can't forbid every form of entertainment that might mislead a schizophrenic into thinking reality doesn't apply. Then we wouldn't even have playing tag left, since it might convince someone it's ok to chase someone else and lay hands on them



Pssst. Newsflash: Porn movies are just that: movies. It's actors consensually playing a role within safe parameters and being paid for it.

Hate to break it to you, but Michael C Hall (the actor of Dexter) wasn't actually a serial killer, Bryan Cranston (of Breaking Bad) didn't actually deal drugs, and Jenna Davis (who played M3GAN) wasn't really a generative AI robot

The same applies to porn movies. Most actors and actresses playing gay or lesbian roles also aren't actually into that, for example. In fact for male gay roles it's mostly a matter of looking good enough to be attractive to gay viewers and it paying better than straight sex if they are.



Neither is showing someone shooting someone else in a movie or series, nor is showing organised crime. So what? What's on screen is on screen.

Real sex is happening in porn and the strangulation / violence part might be simulated or it might be real. Are you going to deal with that?

Given 'The horrifying harms of choking' and how normalised strangulation sex has become and how VAWG is considered a national emergency (in the UK at least), any SJW worth their salt would want to do something about it.

 

[dann]

BTW: Trump was convicted in a civil court.
Tops and bottoms?

I think I learned that term here. I don't remember which one, but it was not in a thread about quarks!
This is a new one:

Instead we're treated to dann's latest investigation into choking porn.

And that's just what I needed to improve my searches. It's a much better search word. Always listen to the experts!

Choking during sex: many young people mistakenly believe it can be done safely, our study shows (Melbourne University, Feb 6, 2025)
Although rare, strangulation is the leading cause of death in consensual BDSM play
A need for better education
Studies from other countries such as the United States have also shown a misunderstanding of the potential dangers of sexual strangulation, and a false perception that it can be safe if undertaken with the “proper precautions”.
Previous research has shown young people commonly learn about sexual strangulation through online pornography, social media and each other. Information from these sources is often misleading.

“It Was Scary, But Then It Was Kind of Exciting”: Young Women’s Experiences with Choking During Sex (PMC, Nov 10, 2021)
Few women referenced pornography as a direct influence on their own initial learning about choking, although most referenced having seen choking in pornography at some point. However, many women described pornography as playing a role in their partner choking them; for example, women often talked about the first person who choked them being someone who watched pornography and who the women felt did sexual things to them that the partner had seen in pornography. Thus, our findings build on to several prior studies in the U.S. and Germany that have suggested an association between watching pornography and enacting various sexual behaviors common to pornography, including choking (Herbenick et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2015).

Choking during sex is common among young adults, but the risks are poorly understood (TheConversation, Feb 4, 2026)
The survey findings suggest that pornography featuring choking is helping to normalise strangulation during sex among young adults. The report was published as the UK government prepares to ban such content in the upcoming crime and policing bill.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, and? On screen it's still consensually agreeing to play that role in exchange for payment. That's the polar opposite of "rape". It's the same difference as one of those actresses agreeing to film a gangbang scene and actually gang raping her.

Besides, Tom Cruise actually drove at 130mph to do his own stunts, but try that on public roads and it's not just illegal, it qualifies as a super-speeder for extra punishment in many states. Brad Pitt and Damson Idris actually reached 180 mph for F1, and nobody would say it means it's safe to do it as a rando. Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci actually punched each other during some scenes to make them look realistic and Pesci suffered an actual broken rib. Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy hit each other for real too. So did Patrick Swayze and Marshall Teague. Etc.

Sure, someone might think it's cool to do that IRL, but we don't forbid action movies, if the actors involved signed up for it.

 

[dann]

It MIGHT. In the same way as watching Western movies might make people think it's normal to play Cowboys and Indians with real guns and ammo, or watching Vikings might make someone want to go plunder England, or watching Beauty And The Beast might convice someone that bestiality is ok, or watching Megadeth's "Symphony Of Destruction" clip might make someone believe it's ok to shoot the president

So? You can't forbid every form of entertainment that might mislead a schizophrenic into thinking reality doesn't apply. Then we wouldn't even have playing tag left, since it might convince someone it's ok to chase someone else and lay hands on them

No, it's not at all like playing with real guns. At least, it isn't where I live because here parents don't have guns lying around:
Accidental shootings by children keep happening. How are toddlers able to fire guns? (CBS, June 20, 2023)
As for Beauty and the Beast, even toddlers can tell the difference between cartoons and real life. I have no idea who watches Megadeath or even what Megadeath is, and I'm not going to bother finding out. By the way, I don't think a significant number of strangulators are schizophrenic.
A piece of advice: Put a little effort into finding analogies for your arguments. The ones you come up with are just silly.

Pssst. Newsflash: Porn movies are just that: movies. It's actors consensually playing a role within safe parameters and being paid for it.
Hate to break it to you, but Michael C Hall (the actor of Dexter) wasn't actually a serial killer, Bryan Cranston (of Breaking Bad) didn't actually deal drugs, and Jenna Davis (who played M3GAN) wasn't really a generative AI robot
The same applies to porn movies. Most actors and actresses playing gay or lesbian roles also aren't actually into that, for example. In fact for male gay roles it's mostly a matter of looking good enough to be attractive to gay viewers and it paying better than straight sex if they are.

Newsflash for HansMustermann: No, porn movies aren't just movies, and people in them aren't just actors playing a role. Some of them are sciptless, people filming themselves or others having sex, no role play, no script, no plot.
I'm surprised you hadn't heard about that, considering your extensive knowledge about porn actors.

Another surprise for you: Unlike in movies, people in porn videos have actual sex! They are not just pretending like the actors do when Dexter kills people or when Walter White cooks meth ... or when actors in the vast majority of mainstream movies simulate having sex instead of actually having it.
I'm surprised I also had to tell you about this diffference between porn videos and movies! I hope you can forgive me for not having used the spoiler-alert function.

Neither is showing someone shooting someone else in a movie or series, nor is showing organised crime. So what? What's on screen is on screen.

What's on screen is on screen, obviously, but sometimes what's on screen is fiction and sometimes it's not. In porn, for the most part, at least the sex is real whereas the storyline is not. And since people tend to fast-forward past the storyline to get to the sex scenes, it's nothing but a filler and entirely unimportant, which is yet another difference between porn videos and movies. People watching porn feel cheated if the porn actors only simulate having sex. People watching movies don't. It's the whole point of the money shot: the male actor proving to the audience that he actually comes and doesn't just pretend.
It would be interesting to know if young people also think that ejaculation outside of the vagina is a typical way of having sex.

You need to come up with better analogies if you want to make anybody buy your argument. Instead of showing the similarity between movies and porn videos, you have managed to prove the opposite. Your argument is as bad and unconvincing as the storylines about pool boys and pizza-delivery guys.
Embarrassing!

The links in post 5,372 will help you understand the connection between porn and strangulation IRL and thus the difference between porn videos and movies.

 

[dann]

Sorry, but I didn't have time to finish my post about your bad analogies in time to save you from posting another one that's just as bad:

Yes, and? On screen it's still consensually agreeing to play that role in exchange for payment. That's the polar opposite of "rape". It's the same difference as one of those actresses agreeing to film a gangbang scene and actually gang raping her.

Besides, Tom Cruise actually drove at 130mph to do his own stunts, but try that on public roads and it's not just illegal, it qualifies as a super-speeder for extra punishment in many states. Brad Pitt and Damson Idris actually reached 180 mph for F1, and nobody would say it means it's safe to do it as a rando. Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci actually punched each other during some scenes to make them look realistic and Pesci suffered an actual broken rib. Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy hit each other for real too. So did Patrick Swayze and Marshall Teague. Etc.

Sure, someone might think it's cool to do that IRL, but we don't forbid action movies, if the actors involved signed up for it.

Once again, you pretend that because people can tell obviously fictitious movies apart from real life, they can also tell that strangulation is just fiction in porn even though there is no way for a young naive person to know that and even though nobody can tell what it feels like for the one being strangulated.

Yes, somebody broke a rib. Why? It was an accident! Accidents happen in real life, and children learn at a fairly early age that movies aren't real, and that accidents happening on the set don't make the movie any more real than when they don't.

I'm surprised you don't also have a reference to the Rust shooting incident.

The sex in porn videos, however, is real. (I know about AI porn; the times they are a'chasing.) There's full penetration in porn or whatever real sex consists of, and impressionable young people, not least considering how miserable sex ed often is, often learn about sex from porn videos. They don't learn about driving from Tom Cruise movies. Driving lessons, driving instructors and driving tests exist for that purpose. No such thing exists for sex.

So once again, you wanted to come up with a similarity between porn videos and movies, and your example proves the opposite of what you hoped.

It's high time for you to give up and just face reality. Porn videos are different from movies! Who would have thought that?!

 

[dann]

Real sex is happening in porn and the strangulation / violence part might be simulated or it might be real. Are you going to deal with that?

Yes, but for the sake of his argument, HansMustermann can't acknowledge the fact.

Given 'The horrifying harms of choking' and how normalised strangulation sex has become and how VAWG is considered a national emergency (in the UK at least), any SJW worth their salt would want to do something about it.

I agree. The argument for BDSM is as ridiculous and childish as the whole BDSM thing itself.
In a violent society, it is not surprising that children learn that naked force, violence and coercion are legitimate ways to accomplish what one wants, and so it also finds its way into their fantasy life.
It's unfortunate that so many people don't seem to be able to outgrow it and instead use whatever brain power nature gave them to justify the condition.

 

[Poem]

Because that is what the two in the article were trying to imply - that they "slid" into under age porn. Both of the criminals in the article went onto the dark web and purposefully searched for images of child abuse and even shared such images. They did not somehow go from legal pornography by slow incremental steps into images and videos of sexual abuse of 7 year olds.

You haven't demonstrated that this is what actually occurred. The article makes no mention of the dark web and, as I said, you have affirmed that you can be put away for looking at material feature legal age actors who simulate underage porn.

San Jose State University:
The online distribution of media depicting child sexual abuse has occurred across various platforms, including email, Internet Relay Chat, peer-2-peer networks, social media, and websites on the Surface Web (Latapy et al., 2013; Steel et al., 2020; Westlake, 2020).

(My emphasis).

Again excuses - legal teen porn features adults who have gone through puberty, they did not go from that to images of prepubescent children being sexually abused without knowing 100% what they were looking for and what they found.

The article makes no mention of prepubescence (though it does cite the Huw Edwards case and images of a 7 year old).

 

[Poem]

From the horses mouth:

"...then those first videos start to become boring. Your brain starts to say, that’s not good enough. Soon you are watching rape fantasies – there are loads of categories like this on mainstream sites. Then it’s teenagers. The algorithms keep showing you more extreme stuff.”

 

[Darat]

Andy: Andy had been watching and sharing images of children being sexually abused for several months before the police appeared at his door.
Mark: They said they had found 200 illegal images.
Hugh Edwards: after being found guilty of accessing indecent photographs of children as young as seven.

Ask yourself this how did the police know these were child abuse images?