Based on some of the anons I'm receiving, I just want to clarify that pastimperfection is not me. I have no idea who they are. In fact, I blocked them months ago.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
"i would kill a pedophile to protect my child" ok but would you teach your child how to say no? even to adults? even to adults you like? would you teach your child the words "penis" and "vulva" and then use them? would you let them ask questions about their body? would you answer them honestly? would you learn how to cope with your feelings when you talk about human bodies, so they don't feel ashamed? would you set a positive example for how you talk about your body? would you tell your child they don't have to hug or kiss anyone? would you tell your family the same? would you stand by them when they refuse to hug someone? even someone you know has never done anything to hurt them? would you let your child avoid food they don't like? would you let you child avoid people they don't like? would you believe them? would you sit in the discomfort of not knowing all the answers and not take it out on them? would you love your child the same if someone did hurt them? would you make them feel valued just as they are? would you let them talk to doctors or nurses in private? would you let them express their feelings? would you show interest in their life? would you let your child say no to you? would you help your child feel safe coming to you when they make a mistake? would you apologize to your child? would you believe them? would you put aside your anger to focus on what would make your child feel safe and loved? would you put your ego aside for your child? would you take your child's concerns seriously? would you listen to your child? would you believe them?
"Maya angelou's family killed a pedophile that raped her, and that just traumatized her more. "I thought that I had caused the man’s death, because I had spoken his name. That was my seven-and-a-half-year logic. So I stopped talking for five years."
Read I know why the caged bird sings."
and here is my comment:
the fantasy of killing a pedophile to defend your child is... an escape from reality. as with all fantasies where a single act of violence stands for a lifetime of effortful care. it lets us off the hook for the day to day labor of actually protecting the human beings around us. it gives us an excuse to look away from what abuse actually looks like.
it allows us to ignore that setting boundaries is a daily practice. it allows us to ignore the subtle ways in which we punish children for having boundaries. it allows us not to think about things we can do, the effort we can put in, in smaller repeated ways, to be kind and caring. to be safe to talk to.
it is a grand gesture that, were you to actually go through with it, would neither prevent the harm that you fear nor help your child to heal from it. it is an idea with no bearing on reality for 99.99% of people, while rape and abuse are a reality for a large fraction of people.
it is not useful to imagine killing a pedophile. it is not useful to claim you would kill a pedophile. it wouldn't be useful to actually attempt to kill a pedophile in almost any situation.
it is useful to think about how you can help your child know they can get help. they can say no. they can tell adults to stop. they deserve to be comfortable. they deserve to be informed.
the entire point of the post is that your child will not be saved by your imagined wrath. the entire point is that your day to day actions, and your attitude towards children as people, are more impactful to your child's well-being. far more realistic. more important.
not least because your child doesn't need you to be wrathful. they need your love. they need care. they need attention.
meanwhile, the public performance of wanting to kill child abusers doesn't do anything to child abusers. most child abusers believe they are doing the right thing for their children.
saying you want to kill abusers doesn't signal anything good to children, either. as others have said, it makes children more afraid to speak up and ask for help. that might be their mom, their coach, their troop leader. it gives those abusers leverage; the children cannot tell if they want things to be stable.
and it makes it harder for adults to BELIEVE children, too! because if their child was really abused, then they've staked their honor on committing that violence, even if it was against their brother or spouse or grandpa or pastor or neighbor or their other kid's favorite babysitter. and if they don't want to do that, well... then they must decide whether they believe completely their child, or whether their child's boundaries must really be respected, or... if maybe it's impossible to know.
how many abuse survivors have tried to disclose, only to be told that so-and-so wouldn't do that, or they didn't mean it, because so-and-so loves you and we all like so-and-so. this dichotomy goes both ways, psychologically. if a child abuser is entirely evil and has to be killed, then someone who's not entirely evil and i don't want to kill can't be a child abuser. this must be something else. there must be a mistake.
you can not adequately protect your children from abuse if you hold on to this idea. i am telling you. your insistence that killing pedophiles will protect your children is holding you back. it is not useful. it is not cute to talk about how much you want to do a single act of violence to abusers as if that would ever be enough to outrun the culture of abuse and the dehumanization of children in our society. you cannot cling to this like a talisman that would ward off any harm your children may come to. you cannot escape reality by telling yourself you'd be a total badass and kill that bad guy dead. this is not helpful.
#Also. there's another step sometimes after #child abuser is an evil person you want to kill → someone you don't want to kill can't possibly be a child abuser #→ find someone you wanted to kill anyway and decide They were the evil child abuser and kill them instead. #At some point you must confront that this is a lynching fantasy! #there is no set of perfect hurdles and constraints you can set up on who it applies to that makes it #incapable of sliding back into being a lynching fantasy. #Thats so deep in the cultural roots of this whole fervor that it can't be cut out. (via @screambirdscreaming)
warning for body talk/weight loss talk/fatphobia etc in this post (but in a critical way if that makes a difference to you)
the longer this ariana grande body talk shit goes on, the angrier I get. the more weight I lose due to my debilitating illness, the more angry the whole "we shouldn't talk about this, because what if she's sick" makes me!
I'm really sick! I have a really limited diet bc of my illness and I have been losing a lot of weight involuntarily! it has gotten to a point where I am looking noticably frail/skeletal and its quite scary, actually! I just had a dietician appointment which was mostly focused on making sure I'm getting the maximum calories and nutrients right now and I'm looking into asking some specialists what they think about supplemental tube feeding bc of how concerned we all are about how thin I am now!
what I'm saying is, my body looks a troubling amount like the kind of body people are expressing concern about being glamorized by celebs right now.
and,
if I was a public figure, it would be my responsibility to make it very clear that I understood the impact that seeing my body glamorized in films and on billboards could have on people. as a public figure, it would be my job to be like, "the size that I am is one that is celebrated and privileged in our society, and it's important to me to make it clear that I don't cosign that and actively oppose it, and that I want all my fans to know I don't want them to look like me. I want them to look like themselves."
or something. I don't know I don't have a PR department. but it's just so fucking galling to respond to this like it's about her specific health rather than the impact that someone with this much fame and glamor and visibility being this size has on the culture and what harmful social issues (that actually hurt people!!) it plays into. I don't think I would be obligated to share my private medical information as a public figure, but I do think it would be my responsibility to refuse to participate in the glamorization of the size of my body.
it sucks. it fucking sucks seeing people use sick people to excuse this going undiscussed. "think about chadwick boseman" don't try to tell me about that shit!!! that was people making racist crackhead memes about a dying black man. this is about a woman who is a white celebrity pop idol whose image is literally everywhere in very idealized and glamorized ways. if you don't know the difference between those two things then you don't know enough about this. I don't care about ariana's health any more or less than I care about the health of any stranger (which is to say, I hope that she is well, and if she is not well then I hope she is able to get effective treatment and recover. because that is how I feel about everyone) and the details of it are not my business. it's not really about her.
pretending to care about sick or disabled people in order to silence necessary conversations about harmful social trends rooted in fatphobia and misogyny and ableism is a shitty look! I don't believe for a second the people who use this argument actually care about people who lose dangerous amounts of weight very quickly for health reasons! because I am one of those people and I THINK WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THIS.
STOP IT OR I'LL DRAG MY UNGLAMOROUS SKELETON OVER THERE ARE FUCKING *GET* YOU!!!!!
Speaking of historic costumes bringing potentially more flavor than expected.
It's really weird how in period movies/series there's a whole spectrum of visual language between slavish devotion to historical accuracy and stylized but well established clichés... and more often the not, new iterations of the same story/time period just err on the side of cliché, even when writing and tone aim to be gritty/realistic (like, say, a Christopher Nolan movie).
In case of our blog it usually means employing double standards and overt sexualization of female characters, but it can be a lot more trivial.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Internal Home Office tests of age-verification technology show the risks of life-altering errors. It’s moving forward anyway.
Age verification is consuming the internet. From social media bans in Australia to porn restrictions in half of US states, for many having to prove their age to access websites is becoming an everyday requirement. But one of the key technologies underpinning many of these age checks is about to seep into the offline world—with potentially life-changing consequences for people having their age predicted by AI.
Starting next year, the British government is planning to introduce facial age estimation—where AI scans your face and suggests how old you are—to help determine the age of asylum seekers arriving at the United Kingdom’s border. The move is believed to be the first time that a so-called facial age estimation (FAE) system has been used in this way. Many asylum seekers arriving in the UK will not have documents proving their age, and if children are incorrectly classed as adults, they can be stripped of some legal protections and placed in adult-only detention centers.
An investigation by WIRED and Lighthouse Reports, in collaboration with The Independent, has obtained an internal UK government report detailing its tests of FAE technologies. It shows how the systems regularly mistake children for adults and appear to contain serious bias problems, which directly impact the largest group of migrants subject to age assessments in 2025, according to data from the Home Office. The investigation raises questions about the effectiveness of the technology and whether it should be deployed in such high-stakes scenarios.
The findings also come as the second Trump administration and governments around the world increasingly adopt anti-migrant policies while spending billions on surveillance technology that is often deployed against vulnerable people who have little knowledge of its use, how it works, or ways they can challenge it.
The leaked Home Office document obtained by Lighthouse Reports largely details the “best” performing of seven facial age estimation algorithms that the department tested last year, although it does not directly name the companies behind them. The report found that the system performed significantly worse when it was used to estimate the ages of Sub-Saharan Africans compared to other groups. Sub-Sarahan Africans are the largest group of migrants entering the UK after crossing the English Channel in small boats in recent years and had more age assessments raised in 2025 than cohorts from other regions, according to Home Office data. For female Sub-Saharan Africans, the age that the system guessed was off by an average of 4.6 years, meaning that a 13.5-year-old girl could be assessed as an 18-year-old adult.
The investigation also found that the Home Office, which oversees UK immigration and policing, disbanded a scientific committee designed to advise it on broader age estimation methods while it was exploring the introduction of AI. “We were keen to highlight the inadequacies of facial age estimation, but this opportunity was not presented to us, and then the committee was shut down,” says Tim Cole, an emeritus professor of medical statistics at University College London’s Institute of Child Health and former committee member. Cole describes the face scans as “hideously inaccurate.”
In addition to the internal report and the scientific committee members’ concerns, years of test results from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology have shown that FAE systems’ accuracy often depends on the race of the person being analyzed and the quality of the photos taken of them.
“We have rigorous processes in place to verify an individual’s age and are working to modernize these through the testing of fast and effective facial age estimation technology,” a Home Office spokesperson says in response to the findings. The spokesperson adds that the committee was disbanded due to requiring “different fields of expertise.”
While the Home Office says face scanning is designed to be an “additional” tool for border officers and won’t “replace or overrule human judgment,” it did not answer questions about how it plans to use the technology in real-world environments. “In cases of uncertainty,” the spokesperson says, “individuals will always be treated as children until a further assessment is conducted.”
Expanding Estimates
The UK government first announced its plans to use face age estimation alongside border staff judgments to assess migrants in July 2025. Since then, the Home Office has delayed the rollout of the systems until 2027, saying it will use the “cutting-edge AI tech” to “crack down on fake claims” with the aim of stopping “adults attempting to game the system.”
Over the past five years, AI face scans have emerged as a key component of controversial online age verification programs, as lawmakers have mandated social media platforms, porn websites, and some retailers check their users’ ages. It has also been trialled at some bars and shops in the UK. Face age estimation works by analyzing the features of someone’s face—with the underlying systems trained on millions of age-labeled faces—to produce an estimated age. In controlled laboratory tests, the best algorithms can predict a person’s age to within around 2.5 years.
However, the results can vary wildly depending on the algorithm, a person’s gender, demographic details, and other factors. Poor-quality images, such as those with bad lighting, can drastically reduce the performance of the systems. (A case in point: People have tricked some systems using images of characters from video games.) The Home Office appears to have been aware of potential problems with the technology and still pushed ahead with its program.
The leaked Home Office report produced in April 2025, which was completed before the government purchased face-scanning technology, details the testing of seven FAE algorithms against more than 2.5 million images. However, the internal report says that the unnamed “best performing algorithm” had “substantial deviations” when tested on images of Sub-Saharan Africans. On average, that system also tended to predict that a 17-year-old would be over 18, and it performed worse on females.
Tens of thousands of people make asylum claims in the UK each year, with many arriving in the country after dangerous, physically demanding journeys in small boats crossing the English Channel. Currently, border staff who doubt the age of someone claiming to be under 18 can assess their physical appearance, answers to interview questions, and general demeanor, to make an initial decision about their age. These initial age estimations are made upon the “first encounter,” the Home Office says in guidance. Since 2010, 40 percent of people who have faced age assessments have been classed as adults, according to official statistics.
The leaked Home Office report says that its findings are based primarily on testing that uses high-quality images taken of documented people, and that may mean that the algorithms’ accuracy rates would be even worse in practice. The Home Office has indicated that FAE technology would help immigration officers who are making age assessments while working at the point of first encounter.
According to the internal report, the few photos included in the testing data that were taken at initial encounters were “routinely worse” than follow-up photos of the same people. The photo quality was apparently so bad that the report was unable to determine if that or the physical condition of asylum seekers at arrival had more of an impact on the algorithms’ age estimation results. NIST’s own testing has found that for many age estimation algorithms, lower-quality photos typically lead to larger errors. The internal report concluded that more needed to be done to study the impacts of stress that asylum seekers endure before arriving at their destination.
“Children seeking asylum have often suffered unimaginable trauma,” says Martha Dark, the co-executive director of rights group Foxglove. “They should not be the test subjects for experimental tech that has baked-in inaccuracy and racist bias.” Foxglove, along with 61 other organizations, sent an open letter to the UK government on Thursday asking for the Home Office to scrap its plans to use the tool.
It is unclear if the flawed system mentioned in the report was purchased by the UK government, but in May this year it spent more than $400,000 on face-scanning technology from German company Cognitec. (The company was one of the seven algorithms tested, but it is unclear which.) A WIRED and Lighthouse Reports analysis of public data about Cognitec’s face age estimation systems found that Cognitec’s system misclassified twice as many 16-year-olds as being 18 or older when the system was tested on a dataset of lower-quality photos taken at border crossings compared to higher-quality visa photos. Lighthouse Reports conducted a full audit of the data from the NIST face estimation scores, which showed demographic differences in performance, including that 16-year-olds from West Africa were more likely to be classified as 18 or older than Eastern European 16-year-olds.
A spokesperson for Cognitec says they could not comment on their work with the Home Office; however, they point out that “demographic differences” in performance apply to all face scanning algorithms. “The reasons for bias are extremely complex and often related to image quality issues,” the spokesperson says.
“The bias of Cognitec algorithms is low compared to other algorithms of similar overall accuracy, and be assured that we are diligently and continuously working on reducing bias by developing specific testing methodologies, designing loss functions in our network training, and by diversifying the training and testing data,” the spokesperson says.
Stress Test
Even if accuracy can be improved, technology is rarely operated exactly how its creators intend. Bugs, technical flaws, and user error mean systems frequently produce errors. When coupled with sensitive decisions that may change people’s lives, those risks can be exacerbated.
For years, according to previous reports from the UK’s Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the Home Office’s human-led age estimations have included problems. There have been instances of “poor” recording keeping, “perfunctory” visual assessments, and at times a lack of explanation from border staff about existing processes. Staff conducting age assessments were not provided with any specific training for the task until 2023, according to the last inspection report.
“Making initial age decisions is a difficult and complex job, with immigration officers working in challenging circumstances, often under pressure to quickly process lots of new arrivals,” the Home Office says in recently published guidance about the potential use of face age estimation AI. “It allows immigration officers to test their judgment against the technology’s estimate.”
Yet in the leaked report from last year, the Home Office said how the face scanning technology would be used in an “operational context” was still being explored. The report, which the government previously declined to release in records requests, also highlights the testing found that “temporary aging” relating to trauma and the “stress of travel” appeared to impact the accuracy of face age estimation systems, raising further questions about the use of the technology in the asylum process.
WIRED, Lighthouse Reports, and the Independent asked the Home Office detailed questions about how already stretched border officers will interact with facial age estimates, whether staff will be provided with specific training that addresses the weaknesses in the systems, and if there will be specific standards required around where and when photographs to be used in the system will be taken. We also asked the Home Office about any steps it is taking to reduce the facial and gender disparities it identified in the technology.
The Home Office did not directly address these questions but said the UK’s National Physical Laboratory has been commissioned to carry out an “independent review” of testing the systems and looking at results of its trials. It has also publicly discussed using a “threshold” age—such as configuring the system to identify if people are under 20—to reduce margins of area. It is unclear if this approach will be taken or what any thresholds may be.
Meanwhile, experts worry that any use of facial age estimation technology at borders will be “dehumanizing” for the people it impacts and could become normalized for staff. “Over time there's a real risk that this will become entrenched,” says Anna Bacciarelli, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “There’s so much risk in every component of this system that it’s really just not worth pursuing to be able to say that you’re using AI to tackle migration.”
The rule could have heavy impacts towards trans people across society.
Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"
The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.
Importantly, the gender ideology prohibition has no age limitation—hospitals could be targeted not just for providing care to minors but for providing gender-affirming care to adults, because prescribing hormone therapy to a transgender patient of any age could be deemed promoting the belief that "sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic."
This is all very bad and horrible, but I want to be clear that it’s worse and more sweeping than just eliminating trans research.
This torches everything. And I do mean everything.
A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):
ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives
allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason
preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies
requiring that topics must support the president’s agenda.
What this means, and if anything I’m under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.
Please, if you only ever write one public comment, this is the one to do.
Bringing back this guide to writing an effective public comment. This gives you the basics you need to know, what you need to include, a basic outline you can follow, etc.
Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:
"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; “if an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ˮ"
But also, if possible, don't stop at writing a comment. Don't stop at calling your representatives. You should ideally be talking to people in your community about this and organizing resistance on-the-ground; there is a good chance people are already doing that even if you aren't hearing about it.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
translation: i fucking hate trans women specifically but i cant say that so ima say essentially "males" except slyly make it obvious i dont mean cis men at all. teehee!!!
this the typa wording yall gotta be looking out for - TERFs will try to bend shit but the core message remains the same
I guess TERFs will do this, but overt TERFs actually use different language because they don't accept assignment vs. identity terminology. They're more likely to use terminology like male/female or refer to sex ("homosexual female" is a dogwhistle).
Equating ASAB and "real" gender or status is much more widespread. Using "AMAB" to mean "man" and "AFAB" to mean "woman" is very common even among people who claim to be trans-affirming and who may even believe that they are.
It's also very common among transmisogynists - like in this tweet, transmisogynists will often use AMAB/AFAB to categorize trans women as dangerous men and trans men as vulnerable women. Both trans men and trans women are misgendered, but trans women are positioned as aggressors. This combines with assertions about "cis men" to exclude trans women from "safe spaces" for LGBTQ+ people.
(I keep unconsciously translating these terms into the older equivalents I'm familiar with, and I think that's not wrong. AMAB/AFAB are currently used in the same way as "female" and "male" several years ago: a way to pretend to deemphasize assigned sex in favor of gender while strongly implying that assigned sex is more true.)
translation: i fucking hate trans women specifically but i cant say that so ima say essentially "males" except slyly make it obvious i dont mean cis men at all. teehee!!!
this the typa wording yall gotta be looking out for - TERFs will try to bend shit but the core message remains the same
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
People, my wonderful transfem friend is taking students for her class. Do your thing and help her find students. The relative value of a dollar and a rupee means that just ten international students can help her make rent.
Hey folks, Swarnim's an old friend and a talented engineer. As Aruvi said, a dollar goes a longer way in India, and India's current regime is exceedingly unkind to trans women trying to find gainful employment, or even just live their lives. Please help a trans woman from the third world support herself!
jacobvanloon
vaporwave
turnnoffyourmind
andulkaphoto
izzy806
jbbartram-illu
