NationStates Jolt Archive

The definition of pedophile I'm using here is simply the area of primary erotic interest. The adults who have a sexual preference for the prepubescent. The don't need to act on those interests or to feel distress over them in order to qualify for the definition I'm using here.

A poll is comming

How hard is it to get the plural's right?

imho they are only evil if they act on their desires

About as evil as gays, or people with a foot fettish.


Although those foot sucking people are wierdos.

How hard is it to get the plural's right?

About as hard as correct use of apostrophes.

still looking for someone to say that you are ok? you may want to seek serious psychological help from a licensed and knowledgeable professional instead of looking for a bunch of smartasses to say you are a decent human being.

Pedophiles are the very embodiment of evil. They are the scrapings from the bottom of the evolutionary barrell. Pond scum has a higher moral standard. Should I find one, I will kill it.

still looking for someone to say that you are ok? you may want to seek serious psychological help from a licensed and knowledgeable professional instead of looking for a bunch of smartasses to say you are a decent human being.

What in the blue hell are you smoking?

Where in the OP do you see anything about DSN being a peadophile?

on the Evilness Scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most depraved kind of sicko criminal deviant and 1 being innocent and pure as myself, pedophiles rank in at about 8.

This is only the case because sadly, there are worse things than simply getting off on children. For example, getting off on them AND mutilating them AND kidnapping AND sodomizing the corpse AND mailing pieces of the body to family members for Christmas.

Human ingenuity: re-defining evil with each headline.

About as hard as correct use of apostrophes.
I hope you say this because you've seen my point. For the op, plurals are apostrophes.

not evil in any way, it's the attitude that they are evil, and the subsequent lack of discussion or help available that has contributed to the number of actual offences that have occured.

still looking for someone to say that you are ok? you may want to seek serious psychological help from a licensed and knowledgeable professional instead of looking for a bunch of smartasses to say you are a decent human being.

Still projecting are we.

I'm a little confused as to what the thread originator is asking for here so...

I'm not sure I'd know a pedophile simply from his/her thoughts since I cant read minds, so I'd have to be aware that they want to have sex with children and in that case, yes of course they are evil. Anyone who thinks sex is ok with a 7 year old is just plain wrong.

Pedophiles are the very embodiment of evil. They are the scrapings from the bottom of the evolutionary barrell. Pond scum has a higher moral standard. Should I find one, I will kill it.

Why? Why are peadophiles any worse than people of any other sexual orienation? Oh yes, the ones who actually rape and molest children aren't worth the carbon they're composed of, but the ones who don't are as human as you or I.

There is no such thing as "evil."

Pedophiles who act on their urges hurt children. That's why what they do is wrong. Not because of something called "evil."

The real question here should be: How evil are Speedo's? :confused:

They are deeply disturbed and potential threats to children, but only if they actually engage their desires are they truly evil. Any person who harms a child in that way is a sick, depraved individual.

Also, please don't try to get us to say that pedophilia is 'ok', cause we won't; it is a severe psychological problem.

I hope you say this because you've seen my point. For the op, plurals are apostrophes.

Oops, now I get it[/stoopid]

Pedophiles are the very embodiment of evil. They are the scrapings from the bottom of the evolutionary barrell. Pond scum has a higher moral standard. Should I find one, I will kill it.
even if "it" has never acted on "its" desires?

Pedo's a contraction of pedophiles

Homophile a term I love to use to poke fun at the religious right.

There is no such thing as "evil."

Pedophiles who act on their urges hurt children. That's why what they do is wrong. Not because of something called "evil."

Couldn't I just say there's no such thing as "wrong" too? I mean, when you come down to it, evil, wrong, both are more or less subjective judgements based on common, but still subjective values.

I don't believe in the word "evil." However, I believe pedophiles are extremely sick, and need to be kept in a secure mental health facility where they have no access to children.

About as evil as gays, or people with a foot fettish.


Although those foot sucking people are wierdos.
Oh God! You know:eek:

Pedo's a contraction of pedophiles

Homophile a term I love to use to poke fun at the religious right.
No. Pedo's a contraction of pedophile (where "'s" stands for "is").
Pedos is a contraction of pedophiles.

Must I teach you your own language?

Couldn't I just say there's no such thing as "wrong" too? I mean, when you come down to it, evil, wrong, both are more or less subjective judgements based on common, but still subjective values.

Well, would you feel it wrong to be hurt against your wish? And when you could not consent to being hurt?

There are things that are wrong because we wouldn't like them done to ourselves, or others, against our or their will. "Evil," on the other hand is a simplistic religious concept, not an ethical one, and thus pointless.

The definition of pedophile I'm using here is simply the area of primary erotic interest. The adults who have a sexual preference for the prepubescent. The don't need to act on those interests or to feel distress over them in order to qualify for the definition I'm using here.

A poll is comming
Your poll makes no sense. If they don't act on their sexual deviation they're not evil, just mentally ill. If they do act on it then they're evil, but the extent to which they're evil depends on what actions they take. For example, a perv who looks at some pictures is much less evil than one who actually touches kids.

What in the blue hell are you smoking?

Where in the OP do you see anything about DSN being a peadophile?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10513260&postcount=97

Oh God! You know:eek:

Yes.....I do.......
*doesn't*

on the Evilness Scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most depraved kind of sicko criminal deviant and 1 being innocent and pure as myself, pedophiles rank in at about 8.

This is only the case because sadly, there are worse things than simply getting off on children. For example, getting off on them AND mutilating them AND kidnapping AND sodomizing the corpse AND mailing pieces of the body to family members for Christmas.

Human ingenuity: re-defining evil with each headline.
Sigging that

No. Pedo's a contraction of pedophile (where "'s" stands for "is").
Pedos is a contraction of pedophiles.

Must I teach you your own language?

What, you're right when you use an apostrophe to make a contraction, but he is wrong to use an apostrophe to make a contraction? There is no difference between your and his contractions. What speaks against him is that "pedo" is already an accepted contraction that does not need an apostrophe, but his is not wrong - only superfluous.

Well, would you feel it wrong to be hurt against your wish? And when you could not consent to being hurt?

There are things that are wrong because we wouldn't like them done to ourselves, or others, against our or their will. "Evil," on the other hand is a simplistic religious concept, not an ethical one, and thus pointless.

Of course there are things I "feel" are wrong, but I'm pretty certain that my feelings are not a universal standard. What if there are things I felt were evil, too?

And both concepts seem to be ethical to me, it's just yours is strictly secular while evil is strictly religious.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10513260&postcount=97


So in regards to this^^^, are you seeking acceptance for your sexual preferences because maybe you feel your desires are wrong somewhere on the inside?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10513260&postcount=97

Ah, fair enough. I thought you were just makin it up. Sorry bout that.

What, you're right when you use an apostrophe to make a contraction, but he is wrong to use an apostrophe to make a contraction? There is no difference between your and his contractions. What speaks against him is that "pedo" is already an accepted contraction that does not need an apostrophe, but his is not wrong - only superfluous.
Well, he is also wrong. The English language may be faulty on the notion of grammar principles (that's why it has no absolute rules for contraction), but you were being superfluous this time around.
Note the limitations he had on the topic. He said: "Pedo's a contraction of pedophiles" (where is the verb?!). He either is contradicting himself, or is aphasic.

Of course there are things I "feel" are wrong, but I'm pretty certain that my feelings are not a universal standard.

Such luck ethics has nothing to do with feelings, or did Mr. Spock not teach you anything?

What if there are things I felt were evil, too?

You would not feel them evil if you had no frame of reference to what evil is. You would think things wrong if done to you against your will.

And both concepts seem to be ethical to me, it's just yours is strictly secular while evil is strictly religious.

That's also why "evil" is pointless. It isn't based in ethics. Religion is not an ethical concept. Ethics is about reasoning, not "some guy in a book told me it was so."

So in regards to this^^^, are you seeking acceptance for your sexual preferences because maybe you feel your desires are wrong somewhere on the inside?

Project much?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10513260&postcount=97
GODDAMMIT! I wanted to create a thread with horribly bent poll options designed to quash all disagreement with my point of view on that question. Fucking pedos, coming out of the fucking closet and ruining my fucking fun.
Now that all my hopes and dreams have been crushed (at least until something else stupid comes along to plan for), I am left only to say that pedophilia isn't inherently wrong. Fucking kids is wrong, but having the desire, fantasies, paraphenalia, etc is all perfectly fine and dandy (if creepy).

Well, he is also wrong. The English language may be faulty on the notion of grammar principles (that's why it has no absolute rules for contraction), but you were being superfluous this time around.

So, if there are no absolute grammatical rules, you cannot claim him to be gramatically wrong.

Note the limitations he had on the topic. He said: "Pedo's a contraction of pedophiles" (where is the verb?!). He either is contradicting himself, or is aphasic.

He was referring to the title. The one in the title is not a typo, he claims, while the latter was (omission of word). The two are separate.

Project much?


Well sorry, I didnt know you were a pedophile until the other person posted your admission. So you think it's ok to want to have sex with children? Or do you think its ok to have sex with children? Or do you think you have a mental illness? .........why dont you enlighten us before you ask for our opnion?

Such luck ethics has nothing to do with feelings, or did Mr. Spock not teach you anything?



You would not feel them evil if you had no frame of reference to what evil is. You would think things wrong if done to you against your will.



That's also why "evil" is pointless. It isn't based in ethics. Religion is not an ethical concept. Ethics is about reasoning, not "some guy in a book told me it was so."

Spock thought me that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few[/nerd]

To the 10 that voted what is the point of this poll.

There are a few.

There is something about putting irrational emotionally charged ideas in print that is rather disillusioning. It causes people to reconsider the irrational idea.

I'm creating an environment where this highly charged topic can be debated.

Well sorry, I didnt know you were a pedophile until the other person posted your admission. So you think it's ok to want to have sex with children? Or do you think its ok to have sex with children? Or do you think you have a mental illness? .........why dont you enlighten us before you ask for our opnion?

It would prejudice things. My timing not yours.

GODDAMMIT! I wanted to create a thread with horribly bent poll options designed to quash all disagreement with my point of view on that question. Fucking pedos, coming out of the fucking closet and ruining my fucking fun.
Now that all my hopes and dreams have been crushed (at least until something else stupid comes along to plan for), I am left only to say that pedophilia isn't inherently wrong. Fucking kids is wrong, but having the desire, fantasies, paraphenalia, etc is all perfectly fine and dandy (if creepy).

:P

Being sexually attracted to children is not something of choice.

Acting on it in an abusive manner is sinful, however, having an orientation is unavoidable.

I am not sexually attracted to children, however that is not my choice, just the way I happen to be and I am glad of it.

To the 10 that voted what is the point of this poll.

There are a few.

There is something about putting irrational emotionally charged ideas in print that is rather disillusioning. It causes people to reconsider the irrational idea.

I'm creating an environment where this highly charged topic can be debated.

It's not the topic that's ridiculous, it's the highly redundant poll. A more accurate answer would come by asking a straightforward question and providing straightforward answers.
Example: Is pedophilia wrong?
-Yes. Hurting children is always wrong.
-No. (I can't think of justification for this one.)
-Neither. Pedophiles are mentally ill
-Other (Please State).

So, if there are no absolute grammatical rules, you cannot claim him to be gramatically wrong.

He was referring to the title. The one in the title is not a typo, he claims, while the latter was (omission of word). The two are separate.
My point was that English does have grammar rules for contactions, but (compared with system-based language), they would seem faulty. One rule towards the other, that is. Compared to my language, which tends to have a clear set for all plurals and all contractions, not a number of sets ("isn't" compared with "pedos"). Nonetheless, the difference between sets is given by rules of grammar - in this sense, they too are absolute. Hence, his error is a grammatical one.

To the 10 that voted what is the point of this poll.

There are a few.

There is something about putting irrational emotionally charged ideas in print that is rather disillusioning. It causes people to reconsider the irrational idea.

I'm creating an environment where this highly charged topic can be debated.


ok...

Then yes, thoughts of having sex with children is wrong just as the act itself is. As humans, we have shown that we are very likely to act upon our desires.
What keeps you from acting on your desires...the fact that you might get caught and sent to prison or the fact that you would be inflicting horrible mental and physical pain on an innocent child? I say this assuming you have not acted on your desires....

My point was that English does have grammar rules for contactions, but (compared with system-based language), they would seem faulty. One rule towards the other, that is. Compared to my language, which tends to have a clear set for all plurals and all contractions, not a number of sets ("isn't" compared with "pedos"). Nonetheless, the difference between sets is given by rules of grammar - in this sense, they too are absolute. Hence, his error is a grammatical one.

His error is only grammatical if he meant for it to be a plural of "pedo." He did not, he claims. Thus it is not a grammatical error.

imho they are only evil if they act on their desires

Quite so. Pædophilia is a curse, not a blessing.

Spock thought me that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few[/nerd]

There are different kinds of ethics. Spock was utilitarian.

His error is only grammatical if he meant for it to be a plural of "pedo." He did not, he claims. Thus it is not a grammatical error.
Read the title of the thread and then tell me about it.

Pedophiles are the very embodiment of evil. They are the scrapings from the bottom of the evolutionary barrell. Pond scum has a higher moral standard. Should I find one, I will kill it.
Yup.


I still don't like you Dark Shadowy Nexus, sorry.
Simply because I am a father who has a real grasp(and fear) of the evil those people carry as opposed to most of these people here, doesnt place me on your team, not by a long shot.

Read the title of the thread and then tell me about it.

I have. There is nothing to indicate he meant the plural of "pedo" any more than that he meant the contraction of "pedophiles." As I said, he may be unorthodox, but he is not wrong. We cannot know what he meant, so we have to take his word for it.

Those who act of their 'urge' to have sex with children should face the death penalty and if they are caught red handed, then they do not even need to go through the process of going to court for trial, they can be taken out of the building that they are caught in and shot.

I would also like to see the execution of child abusers to be filmed publicly and shown on national television, to send a clear message to the nation, that this sick and evil practice would not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Why gives these degenerates the chance to go into mental institutions, why waste public money that should be spent on the innconet mentally ill who really do need therapy.

Given that English Law is so soft and tolerant of child abuse, I would urge any person who came across a child abuser, to kill them, if you can get away with it.

I have. There is nothing to indicate he meant the plural of "pedo" any more than that he meant the contraction of "pedophiles." As I said, he may be unorthodox, but he is not wrong. We cannot know what he meant, so we have to take his word for it.
So, "babi's" is an acceptable contraction of "babies"?

--snip--

"Evil" to combat "evil."

So, "babi's" is an acceptable contraction of "babies"?

Grammatically, there is nothing against it. There is a usage against it.

About this evil:

<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

(apologies if it's been done, just attempting to make a point about the thread)

Grammatically, there is nothing against it. There is a usage against it.
Grammar is usage, even more so for English.
My guess is that we are both right.

Those who act of their 'urge' to have sex with children should face the death penalty and if they are caught red handed, then they do not even need to go through the process of going to court for trial, they can be taken out of the building that they are caught in and shot.

I would also like to see the execution of child abusers to be filmed publicly and shown on national television, to send a clear message to the nation, that this sick and evil practice would not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Why gives these degenerates the chance to go into mental institutions, why waste public money that should be spent on the innconet mentally ill who really do need therapy.

Given that English Law is so soft and tolerant of child abuse, I would urge any person who came across a child abuser, to kill them, if you can get away with it.

You scare me.

"Evil" to combat "evil."

And as we know, fighting fire with gasoline works well, right? That's why states with the death penalty have such low crime rates.

snip

I believe you are the Brit who supports Bible based Theologies.

If that is the case than your post would fall under the all inclusive dismissive rule. If it comes from a hardened unreliable sourse it isn't worth the time to investigate and it probly isn't true.

And as we know, fighting fire with gasoline works well, right? That's why states with the death penalty have such low crime rates.

Sarcasm will get you everywhere.

About this evil:

<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

(apologies if it's been done, just attempting to make a point about the thread)

Point accepted.

Really I never suggested anything else.

Sarcasm will get you everywhere.

So will hypocracy.

No. Pedo's a contraction of pedophile (where "'s" stands for "is").Pedos is a contraction of pedophiles.
Must I teach you your own language?
http://www.journalfen.net/userpic/51377/5630

There is no such thing as "evil."

Pedophiles who act on their urges hurt children. That's why what they do is wrong. Not because of something called "evil."
They are evil. EVIL I tell you! [ beats Fass repeatedly with a frozen trout! ]

If they don't act on it, then there is no crime. If they do, then someone needs to say to them: "so, it's ok to severely harm people if it satisfies your own desires? I'm glad you feel that way, because I have a desire to rip your eyeballs out"

even if "it" has never acted on "its" desires?
And just how should I know one if it hasn't displayed behavior which indicates pedophilia?

And just how should I know one if it hasn't displayed behavior which indicates pedophilia?
Ask. Just do it casually.

Ask. Just do it casually.
Riiiight. :rolleyes:

So will hypocracy.

Wuh?

Who's being hypocritical?

And just how should I know one if it hasn't displayed behavior which indicates pedophilia?


You could allways try pretending you are one of them offering illegal pictures and see if they take the bait. That is how the police do it.

Wuh?

Who's being hypocritical?

DSN was. He used (what I presume to be) a sarcastic comment against sarcasm.

I am curious,has there been any scientific studies about how a person develops into a pedophile, is it incremental, blooming like an evil flower or is it a matter of being a bad seed? If more was understood about about how and why this sexual deviance originates maybe something can done to circumvent or treat it , or am i building castles in the air here?

You could allways try pretending you are one of them offering illegal pictures and see if they take the bait. That is how the police do it.

You are speaking from experience?

I am curious,has there been any scientific studies about how a person develops into a pedophile, is it incremental, blooming like an evil flower or is it a matter of being a bad seed? If more was understood about about how and why this sexual deviance originates maybe something can done to circumvent or treat it , or am i building castles in the air here?

Your castles could be in the air or on rebarred concrete foundations. Nobody knows really, like how nobody knows what makes people gay, or if they're just gay regardless. They might just be or it could be a result of their upbringing.

You are speaking from experience?

Common topic of discussion in pedophile forums.

DSN was. He used (what I presume to be) a sarcastic comment against sarcasm.

It's true I did.

Common topic of discussion in pedophile forums.

Way not to answer the question.

They have forums dedicated to pedophiles?

Pedophiles aren't evil. They're just weird, crazy freaks. Like Michael Jackson, for example.

Pedophiles who never act on their desire to molest children are not evil. To me evil suggests someone consciously doing something very morally wrong with absolutely no regret or empathy for those they harm and no reason for doing so except pure malice or selfishness. Thinking about doing something like this and keeping it to yourself isn't harmful, but it would be a good idea to have therapy in this situation to keep it from causing a person to act on it eventually.

I would say that there are probably some evil pedophiles, but for such a mindset to develop, something seriously wrong must have happened to them - perhaps they had abusive parents, or they were born with something defective in their brain - in which case, I still have some sympathy for them. In fact, I can't imagine how *anyone* (in the real world) could be completely evil by nature, and so I do not completely shun or condemn anyone, even if they're evil.

What in the blue hell are you smoking?

Where in the OP do you see anything about DSN being a peadophile?


Search DSN postings

They have forums dedicated to pedophiles?
Yes, unfortunately.

For the OP, those who ahve not acted upon their desires are not evil, but are mentally ill and in need of help to make sure they do NOT act upon them at some later date.

Those who do act upon them... they are evil and should be prosocuted within the full range of the law.

Way not to answer the question.

They have forums dedicated to pedophiles?

The answer no is implied. Or at least, I inferred it.

This is teh interwebs, they have forums dedicated to everything.

Search DSN postings
Already dealt with, but thanks anyway

I believe all people are inherently bad. Evil? What's evil? In the end I think that mankind is comprised of petty, thoughtless, cruel little beings. Pedophiles and rapists are just floating somewhere near the bottom of our collective barrel.

That said, I am a loving father and I'm also a terrible person, capable of dark things. So are all of you. I just wouldn't hesitate to gore and torture someone who abused my daughter, and I'm sure I'd enjoy it. Justice? What justice? I want vengence and retribution and, in the case of my children, nothing would keep me from it. Not Johnny Law, not every whining rehabilitation supporter, not nuclear holocaust and not Christ himself come to fucking earth.

Does that make me evil, and bound for hell? Hopefully. Because if I am ever forced to destroy a pedophile for abusing my children, I hope they execute me and send me straight down to the 'ot place, so I can hound his ass for all eternity.

Way not to answer the question.

They have forums dedicated to pedophiles?

Yeah, someone once posted an article onto Wikipedia that was about a pedophile forum.

I believe all people are inherently bad. Evil? What's evil? In the end I think that mankind is comprised of petty, thoughtless, cruel little beings. Pedophiles and rapists are just floating somewhere near the bottom of our collective barrel.

That said, I am a loving father and I'm also a terrible person, capable of dark things. So are all of you. I just wouldn't hesitate to gore and torture someone who abused my daughter, and I'm sure I'd enjoy it. Justice? What justice? I want vengence and retribution and, in the case of my children, nothing would keep me from it. Not Johnny Law, not every whining rehabilitation supporter, not nuclear holocaust and not Christ himself come to fucking earth.

Does that make me evil, and bound for hell? Hopefully. Because if I am ever forced to destroy a pedophile for abusing my children, I hope they execute me and send me straight down to the 'ot place, so I can hound his ass for all eternity.

Now that's what I'm talking about!

Saying that all pedophiles are mentally ill is like saying all murderers are. Some murderers are mentally ill. But some are just mean and get off on hurting others.

You've collectively killed my fragile faith in the remote possibility of the good nature of mankind.

Thanks.

:(

The answer no is implied. Or at least, I inferred it.



see I interpreted that avoiding a direct response to my question meant yes.

Saying that all pedophiles are mentally ill is like saying all murderers are. Some murderers are mentally ill. But some are just mean and get off on hurting others.
I'm making a distinction between a pedophile, someone who finds a child sexual attractive, and a child molester, someone who molests children.

A child molester may or may not find the child to be sexual attractive like a pedophile does, and a pedophile may or may not act upon their desires.

However, finding children to be sexually attractive is a mental illness as defined by the APA so...

But you're right, not all child molesters are mentally ill.

Saying that all pedophiles are mentally ill is like saying all murderers are. Some murderers are mentally ill. But some are just mean and get off on hurting others.

Actually, it's not really. Yes, not all murderers are mentally ill. But those who commit murders because they "get off" on it suffer from extreme personality disorders, such as anti-social disorder. Others commit murders, in my opinion, because they are dealing with some sort of immense emotional distress. They may have been raised in a poor family, they may have a drug addiction, they may have been betrayed by a lover, etc. Most of those kind of murderers need rehabilitation and care to become practicing members of society. No one commits murders without a reason.
All pedophiles, on the other hand, are mentally ill. I can't really explain why it's true. It just is.

Actually, it's not really. Yes, not all murderers are mentally ill. But those who commit murders because they "get off" on it suffer from extreme personality disorders, such as anti-social disorder. Others commit murders, in my opinion, because they are dealing with some sort of immense emotional distress. They may have been raised in a poor family, they may have a drug addiction, they may have been betrayed by a lover, etc. Most of those kind of murderers need rehabilitation and care to become practicing members of society. No one commits murders without a reason.
All pedophiles, on the other hand, are mentally ill. I can't really explain why it's true. It just is.

Sorry, I dont buy it. And as for murderers who have been raised in poor families, drug addictions, been betrayed by a lover, those are cop outs. Just as many have overcome those hardships and made themselves better than their previous enviroment.....without therapy. I know cause I've seen it.

Sorry, I dont buy it. And as for murderers who have been raised in poor families, drug addictions, been betrayed by a lover, those are cop outs. Just as many have overcome those hardships and made themselves better than their previous enviroment.....without therapy. I know cause I've seen it.

Did I ever say that every person in those situations grows up to be a murderer? No. But sometimes people aren't shown proper interpertation and understanding of their own emotions as a child. A lot of that boils down to parents, which I know, because I'm an emotional clone of my mother. Different people react to situations in different ways. Some might just bottle their feelings. Others might cross the line and begin lives of crime. But as I mentioned, nobody commits crime without a reason. There is always, always a reason.
And as exemplified by Quebec's magnificent progress with young offenders (last I heard, the rehabilitation program had led to lower youth crime rates than any other province), rehabilitation is a successful way of dealing with one of the world's largest problems. To me, it's the only way that makes sense. Why would you put a bunch of emotionally unstable people together in a place where beatings are frequent and guards turn a blind eye*. It's ridiculous, and, it's safe to say, compeletly ineffective.

*prison.

*yawns*

How pedantic.

Does anyone know how many children the average paedophile will molest in their lifetime? According to John Douglas, former FBI profiler, that number is over 100. If not caught.

Unfortunately for the victims, anyone sexually attracted to children is extremely likely to act upon it. Just like a bisexual, gay or heterosexual person is going to act on their sexual desires at some point or another. Those that "only fantasise but never act on it" are already travelling down the slippery slope to becoming a perpetrator. They will begin going to places where there are a lot of children, in their mind just to look, not to touch. Because, there's no harm in just looking, right? Then, they will begin to interact with the children, to feed the fantasy. Then the fantasy will become overpowering. And they will act on it.

Noone in their right mind would agree that a homosexual person could be "rehabilitated" to become "normal" that is to say, heterosexual. Fortunately for them, they don't need to. Theirs is a perfectly acceptable orientation, they are not harming anyone, and are in fact, no different at the fundamental level than heterosexuals. Paedophiles, by the very nature of their orientation, are directly responsible for causing harm. There is a victim every time they act on their desires, no matter how "indirectly" (i.e. through the viewing of child pornography). It is therefore, my personal belief that those who are convicted of molestation or child pornography offences be confined to prison for the rest of their lives. For their own good, and the good of all children.

Looking at images of little uns in a sexual manner is pretty sick.

Does anyone know how many children the average paedophile will molest in their lifetime? According to John Douglas, former FBI profiler, that number is over 100. If not caught.

That can't be true becasue the average Pedo is caught.

I'm making a distinction between a pedophile, someone who finds a child sexual attractive, and a child molester, someone who molests children.

A child molester may or may not find the child to be sexual attractive like a pedophile does, and a pedophile may or may not act upon their desires.

However, finding children to be sexually attractive is a mental illness as defined by the APA so...

But you're right, not all child molesters are mentally ill.

Not by the new definition look it up.

That can't be true becasue the average Pedo is caught.

Actually, that's not true either. Estimates state that 20% of all boys and 25% of all girls will experience sexual abuse. But less than 1% are actually reported. If the crimes aren't reported, how are they caught?

Actually, that's not true either. Estimates state that 20% of all boys and 25% of all girls will experience sexual abuse. But less than 1% are actually reported. If the crimes aren't reported, how are they caught?
It wasn't average?
http://deseretnews.com/photos/2420681.jpg

Actually, that's not true either. Estimates state that 20% of all boys and 25% of all girls will experience sexual abuse. But less than 1% are actually reported. If the crimes aren't reported, how are they caught?I estimate that much of the statistics are poor to say the least. There is no real funding to research this and the research that does get done is done by religious right nut jobs like focus on the family.

Interesting how the overwhelming majority of pedo's seem to be white herosexual males who just so happen to be Christian.

I estimate that much of the statistics are poor to say the least. There is no real funding to research this and the research that does get done is down by religious right nut jobs like focus on the family.

Oh yes, the FBI is a religious, right-wing nutjob organisation with no funding. Yes, I see.

Interesting how the overwhelming majority of pedo's seem to be white herosexual males who just so happen to be Christian.
No that is only the ones that get caught or found out.

The reason we know so little about pedo's is the same reason pediatricians get attacked. Ignorance, fear, hate. The same reason for much of the world's evil. The whole thing has been blown out of such proportion, in fifty years people will look back on this view and wonder how anyone could be so stupid

in fifty years people will look back on this view and wonder how anyone could be so stupid

Then again, that's true for anything from science to national policy.

Then again, that's true for anything from science to national policy.

It's true for a lot of things, I'm constantly amazed by people's inability to learn from history or to gain perspective but this will change more than most issues, it's simply a matter of time. Might get worse before it gets better mind you

Not by the new definition look it up.
Really now?

The APA publication Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lists it as such in the IV (current) edition.

I also found this for your interest addressing what I had posted:

Paraphilias or sexual deviations involve appropriate sexual behavior, such as fantasizing, urges, masturbation, and intercourse, in response to inappropriate stimuli or situations. The DSM–IV distinguishes paraphilias primarily on the basis of the structure of the inappropriate stimulus or situation. In the case of pedophilia, the stimuli evoking sexual behavior are children. Subtypes of pedophiles are specified on the basis of whether these individuals are attracted to boys, girls, or children of both genders, whether they molest children within or outside of their families, and whether they limit their sexual activities exclusively to children or also conduct age-appropriate sexual relations (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 528). Behavioral scientists have devised additional structural subtypologies in an attempt to refine the DSM category of pedophilia. For example, the presence of antisocial tendencies (Fitch, 1962), degree of entrenchment or fixation of the behavior (Groth, 1979; Knight, Carter, & Prentky, 1989), degree of force used (Groth, 1979), and social inadequacies of the offender (Fitch, 1962; Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christenson, 1964; Knight et al., 1989; Mohr, 1964) have been suggested as helpful distinctions to be made in diagnosing child molesters.

An example of this kind of structural typology is the classification of pedophiles developed by the FBI. This system was created for the pragmatic goal of assisting the police in criminal cases. It distinguishes between offenders who exhibit a sexual preference for children and those who sexually abuse children as a function of situational determinants (Lanning, 1986). Preference offenders are further subdivided into the seductive offenders, who have an exclusive sexual interest in children and court them; the introverted offenders, who lack social skills and molest children whom they do not know and the very young; and the rare sadistic offenders, who combine a sexual preference for children with a need to inflict pain. The category of situational offenders is also subdivided into that of the regressed offenders who are emotionally needy and turn to children under stress; the morally indiscriminate offenders who are antisocial individuals; the sexually indiscriminate offenders who exhibit ill-defined sexual arousal patterns and sexually experiment in many situations; and the inadequate offenders who lack social skills and may be psychotic, developmentally impaired, or organically impaired.

The many existing nosologies suggest that sex offenders molest children for different reasons. Topographically similar behaviors may serve many different functions and may very well demand different interventions. To the extent that these different functions can be discovered and addressed in treatment, fewer children will be molested. Thus, a refinement of the diagnostic subtypes of pedophilia based on a functional analysis could make valuable contributions involving differential treatment implications and novel research avenues.
Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., & Dougher M. J. (1996). A logical functional analysis of reinforcement-based disorders : alcoholism and pedophilia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1140-1151.

The reason we know so little about pedo's is the same reason pediatricians get attacked.
<_< ... >_> ... Um, pediatricians are attacked? HUH?

About as hard as correct use of apostrophes.

Damn! Stole my thunder...

Oh yes, the FBI is a religious, right-wing nutjob organisation with no funding. Yes, I see.

Are you suggesting that you are quoting an FBI statistic?

Really now?

The APA publication Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lists it as such in the IV (current) edition.

I also found this for your interest addressing what I had posted:


Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., & Dougher M. J. (1996). A logical functional analysis of reinforcement-based disorders : alcoholism and pedophilia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1140-1151.

1994 isn't the latest edition.

<_< ... >_> ... Um, pediatricians are attacked? HUH?

Yeah, it's funny yet scary - there have been quite a few instances of the two titles being confused and an innocent pediatrician attacked for their supposed unhealthy interest in kids

1994 isn't the latest edition.
Yes, it is. The 2000 updated the language a bit, but did not remove any of the list. The next edition is planned to be released in 2012.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890420254/002-3427254-7642453?v=glance&n=283155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

And finally from the 2000 edition:
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

Yeah, it's funny yet scary - there have been quite a few instances of the two titles being confused and an innocent pediatrician attacked for their supposed unhealthy interest in kids
Learn something new (and usually distrubing) everyday now... :eek:

Yes, it is. The 2000 updated the language a bit, but did not remove any of the list. The next edition is planned to be released in 2012.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890420254/002-3427254-7642453?v=glance&n=283155
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

And finally from the 2000 edition:
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

If you look closely you will notice that a simple prefernce for the prepubesant isn't matching criteria.

If you look closely you will notice that a simple prefernce for the prepubesant isn't matching criteria.

Yea but he summarized a bit so as not to have to write an entire paper on the meaning and therefore not get any replies because no one would read the entire thing.

If you look closely you will notice that a simple prefernce for the prepubesant isn't matching criteria.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

Sounds like it to me.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

Sounds like it to me.

Dosn't sound like it to me.

I believe a person needs to match all three criteria.

Stll even the one is short of a match.

Dosn't sound like it to me.
I'm not surprised, you've previously shown that you will ignore anything that doesn't agree with your notion that it's ok for a grown adult to have sex with a child.

I've posted my evidence, where's yours to prove me wrong?

I'm not surprised, you've previously shown that you will ignore anything that doesn't agree with your notion that it's ok for a grown adult to have sex with a child.

I've posted my evidence, where's yours to prove me wrong?


DSM4-TR
Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.


There is mine where is yours?

DSM4-TR
Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.


There is mine where is yours?
Heh... can you have a normal sexual relationship with another adult? Sounds like an interpersonal difficulty to me. Can you act upon your sexual desire with a child? No? Does that not cause you some distress? You yourself have stated that you must hide your identity because the rest of the world does not accept your sexual desires. Does THAT not cause you some interpersonal difficulty and distress? You don't need to act upon them to fit the bill.

I am no psycologist, but I can see where they would be applied.

But the point is immaterial whether they apply to YOU. I stated that the APA catagorizes pedophilia as a mental disorder or illness (though the term illness has been abandoned). You have tried to state that I was wrong and that the APA does not so catagorize it. I have proven you wrong with DSM-IV. You then tried to state that book was out of date. I have proven you wrong again and have shown the listing from DSM-IV-TR. Now you attempt to say they do not apply to you... well, I am not a psycologist and even if I were, I sure as hell would not make a determination from just your postings on NS General, but your attempt to move the argument and argue points does not remove the fact that yes, pedophilia is seen as a mental disorder by the APA.

Pedophilia is seen as a mental disorder.

A sexual preference for children is not.

Not evil, simply warped... Hell, for all we know, the people who AREN'T pedo could be evil from their viewpoint.

Not evil, simply warped... Hell, for all we know, the people who AREN'T pedo could be evil from their viewpoint.

Actualy,,,,,,,

The evil is in the action. You can't control what gets you off. You *can* control what you do about it. If you ever touch a young child, you are extremely evil.

If you never hurt anybody, you're no more evil than a person who wants to kill a guy who's a pain in the ass and doesn't do it.

Pedophilia is seen as a mental disorder.

A sexual preference for children is not.
You've identified your self as a pedophile, have you not?

And:
paedophilia | pedophilia, n.
Brit. /pidfl/, U.S. /pdflj/, /pidflj/, /pdfli/, /pidfli/ Forms: see PAEDO- and -PHILIA. [< PAEDO- + -PHILIA.]

Sexual desire directed towards children.
A sexual desire/preference (directed) towards/for children...

Hmm... seems to match. Call it what you will, I know that according to Wiki, you prefer the term ChildLover, but you are what you are and it is what it is. You cannot escape that, no matter how much you may wish to do so.

And therefore yes, pedophila, having a sexual preference for children IS a mental disorder as defined by the APA.

Do we have any pedos here? Maybe we can get the information straight from them.

You've identified your self as a pedophile, have you not?

And:

A sexual desire/preference (directed) towards/for children...

Hmm... seems to match. Call it what you will, I know that according to Wiki, you prefer the term ChildLover, but you are what you are and it is what it is. You cannot escape that, no matter how much you may wish to do so.

And therefore yes, pedophila, having a sexual preference for children IS a mental disorder as defined by the APA.

Rather twisted.

Using a dictionary definition to suggest that the APA refers to a simple sexuual interest in children as the mental disorder pedophilia is rather deceitful is it not.

Try again.

Do we have any pedos here? Maybe we can get the information straight from them.

There are no pedo's here.

There are no pedo's here.
Well then. We will not find out what their point of view is towards the rest of us.

Rather twisted.

Using a dictionary definition to suggest that the APA refers to a simple sexuual interest in children as the mental disorder pedophilia is rather deceitful is it not.

Try again.
And you keep moving the bar back and back and back. I give you the point that you never give up though.

However, you STILL have not shown any proof that states pedophilia is not sexual desire for children, nor have you shown proof that it is not classified as a mental illness by the APA. You are splitting hairs, or attempting to.

So, tell me why I should NOT classify having sexual desires towards children as pedophilia (which is listed in the APA document, BTW). Then tell me how your desires towards children do not fit what has been listed here.

Go on, I'm waiting.

And you keep moving the bar back and back and back. I give you the point that you never give up though.

However, you STILL have not shown any proof that states pedophilia is not sexual desire for children, nor have you shown proof that it is not classified as a mental illness by the APA. You are splitting hairs, or attempting to.

So, tell me why I should NOT classify having sexual desires towards children as pedophilia (which is listed in the APA document, BTW). Then tell me how your desires towards children do not fit what has been listed here.

Go on, I'm waiting.

There is no splitting hairs. Sexual interest in children is not what the APA classifies as the mental disorder pedophila. You have done nothing but restate your "ignorant" ( ignorant as in without knowledge ) point. Again I'll restate mine.

There is no splitting hairs. Sexual interest in children is not what the APA classifies as the mental disorder pedophila. You have done nothing but restate you "ignorant" ( ignorant as in without knowledge ) point. Again I'll restate mine.

Is the distincition you're making that you haven't acted on your desires for children?

Is the distincition you're making that you haven't acted on your desires for children?

Part B requires distress or action.

As to the question. If I had acted I couldn't tell ya.

If I didn't saying no could be seen as a way to wiggle out of not answering the question by answering it with a lie as to aviod legal trouble. So in truth this is a impossable question.

Nor am I distressed.

There is no splitting hairs. Sexual interest in children is not what the APA classifies as the mental disorder pedophila. You have done nothing but restate your "ignorant" ( ignorant as in without knowledge ) point. Again I'll restate mine.
Bull, you're desperately trying to find a shield that covers you from something you do not want to see.

If I am ignorant, pray, correct me. You have not done so, just told me that I am wrong.

Part B requires distress or action.
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
Not just distress or action, but that it interfears with healthy normal interpersonal relationships. The innability to have a normal sexual realtionship with an adult would be so, wouldn't you say? And would you not say, again, that your innability to be able to relate to others may also cause some issues in the interpersonal department?

But again, if you can actually prove me wrong, by all means do so. Please bring forth any evidence that having sexual desires towards children is not pedophilia and/or show that the APA does not state that pedophilia is a mental disorder. Please do so now because I grow tired of your attempts to try and find new ways to split hairs and words without stating one damn thing.

NERVUN, dont even waste your breath. He knows good and well that he's a pedophile and he's seriously trying to find someone to tell him that its ok. The only ones who will tell him that are fellow pedophiles.

Bull, you're desperately trying to find a shield that covers you from something you do not want to see.

If I am ignorant, pray, correct me. You have not done so, just told me that I am wrong.


B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
Not just distress or action, but that it interfears with healthy normal interpersonal relationships. The innability to have a normal sexual realtionship with an adult would be so, wouldn't you say? And would you not say, again, that your innability to be able to relate to others may also cause some issues in the interpersonal department?

But again, if you can actually prove me wrong, by all means do so. Please bring forth any evidence that having sexual desires towards children is not pedophilia and/or show that the APA does not state that pedophilia is a mental disorder. Please do so now because I grow tired of your attempts to try and find new ways to split hairs and words without stating one damn thing.

Are you the magical psycho fairy? How would you know of my interpersonal difficulty if I had any?

Part B requires distress or action.

As to the question. If I had acted I couldn't tell ya.

If I didn't saying no could be seen as a way to wiggle out of not answering the question by answering it with a lie as to aviod legal trouble. So in truth this is a impossable question.

Nor am I distressed.

So, you aren't distressed, but you can't tell us if you've taken action. In my part of the world, we've got a 5th amendment deal that it doesn't really make you guilty if you don't want to answer the question.

Seems like the impossible question still makes a point, but it would be unfair for me to assume you're guilty of anything at all.

Are you the magical psycho fairy? How would you know of my interpersonal difficulty if I had any?

Well, to be honest, if you were somebody I knew who had these kinds of impulses, I don't think I'd interact with you as freely as I would somebody who didn't want to touch little kids.

NERVUN, dont even waste your breath. He knows good and well that he's a pedophile and he's seriously trying to find someone to tell him that its ok. The only ones who will tell him that are fellow pedophiles.

?

The commies are comming the commies are comming!!!

So, you aren't distressed, but you can't tell us if you've taken action. In my part of the world, we've got a 5th amendment deal that it doesn't really make you guilty if you don't want to answer the question.

Seems like the impossible question still makes a point, but it would be unfair for me to assume you're guilty of anything at all.

No I have not acted out.

Well, to be honest, if you were somebody I knew who had these kinds of impulses, I don't think I'd interact with you as freely as I would somebody who didn't want to touch little kids.

Than again I would need tell of of said interest. An interest no one would claim in this witch hunt.

What's all this stuff about mental illness? Does it really have any relevance?

Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, etc, are some of the most pointless concepts ever developed. So what if evil exists? You can say: "You should not be a pedophile because it is evil". Fine. That's fair enough, it may well be evil from some peoples point of view. But does it change anything? No. People will want to do evil and will continue to do evil whether they should or not. So who cares about whether or not it's evil. The fact of the matter is that theft, murder, rape, pedophilia, etc, are dangerous to the stability of society. For society to funtion properly we need to feel safe. With murderers and pedophiles walking among us we cannot feel safe. We are scared that some lunatic will knife us in the back and take our money. We are affraid to let our children go down to the local park on their own just in case they get lured into a strangers car and kidnapped. Whether these acts of murder and kidnap are evil or not is completely irrelevant. Society has an obligation to protect it's members rights. The right to life, the right to feel safe, etc. And society will do things to protect these rights. Society will identify threats and neutralise them before they cause harm. Society incarcerates and in certain cases executes people who commit these crimes against society. People want to feel safe, and society will do whatever it takes to ensure that safety. To sum it up in a sentence, if you commit a crime you will be punished.

It just so happens that pedophiles are the most hated criminals. People can handle the death of a loved one. They can handle being robbed on a street corner. What they cannot handle is the sexual abuse of a child. A child is the symbol of innocence. When a child falls over and hurts themselves, adults feel bad. When a child is picked on by a bigger child, adults feel angry and they step in to help the smaller child. It is in our nature to protect innocence. And when we hear of how a child has been sexually abused, it makes our blood boil. It sends us into spouts of madness where we would go as far as to murdering a pedophile for causing us such intense emotional pain. This should not come as a surpries to anyone. It's human nature. So stop with the stupid threads and just let it be. Because you're making many people very angry with them

Are you the magical psycho fairy? How would you know of my interpersonal difficulty if I had any?
Not to my knowledge, no. I am, however, just showing that you do not have to either act upon your desires nor be in destress for you to meet condition B.

I am also asking you to show cause as to why having sexual deires towards children should not be classified as pedophilia as you have so stated.

?

The commies are comming the commies are comming!!!


Try more like a mother of two young children.

NERVUN, dont even waste your breath. He knows good and well that he's a pedophile and he's seriously trying to find someone to tell him that its ok. The only ones who will tell him that are fellow pedophiles.
Eh... I've been known to argue with folks who are more stubborn than he is. ;)

Besides, I agree with the notion that it is far better to challenge than to let it be assumed that silence equals accent, or to talk to an echo chamber of folks saying how wonderful this is.

No I have not acted out.

So you have desires, which, if acted on, would make you a pedophile (sic?)?

So you have desires, which, if acted on, would make you a pedophile (sic?)?

Dictionary definition not the mental illness.

Dictionary definition not the mental illness.


Do you think you have a mental disorder or not? If you do, have you sought help?

Do you think you have a mental disorder or not? If you do, have you sought help?

I do not fit the APA definition of the mental disorder.

Dictionary definition not the mental illness.
Well, at least you're admiting THAT.

The second part is up to a licenced and practicing psycologist who makes an examination, and I am, nor have done, neither.

I do not fit the APA definition of the mental disorder.

Then I would like to know just how having sex with a child turns you on...the thoughts of performing an act that would be both physically and metally painful to an innocent child? Or better yet not how it turns you on but how you rationalize it and think there's nothing wrong with it?

Then I would like to know just how having sex with a child turns you on...the thoughts of performing an act that would be both physically and metally painful to an innocent child? Or better yet not how it turns you on but how you rationalize it and think there's nothing wrong with it?

Innocense is as immaginary as the easter bunny and sexual play not intercourse " yick " mind you is as harmful as a Nerf basket ball. Actually my interests lies more in wet pants and diapers than anything having to do with copulation.

Innocense is as immaginary as the easter bunny and sexual play not intercourse mind " yick " is as harmful as a Nerf basket ball. Actually my interests lies more in wet pants and diapers than anything having to do with copulation.


what is yick and what do you mean your interest lies in wet pants and diapers? I dont understand what you are saying.

Dictionary definition not the mental illness.

Which aspect of the mental illness definition would not apply to you, had you acted on these impulses?

to Peechland

Diapers expessially those for bedwetting and wet pants as it relates to children. Little girls would be physicaly injured by copulation.

Screwed up the quotes sorry about that.

Which aspect of the mental illness definition would not apply to you, had you acted on these impulses?

Part B part of the definition: acted, distressed, interpersonal relationships.

to Peechland

Diapers expessially those for bedwetting and wet pants as it relates to children. Little girls would be physicaly injured by copulation.

Screwed up the quotes sorry about that.

ok I have either had too much cold medicine or you arent being clear. So you are opposed to copulation of little girls because you do not want to hurt them? Where I'm having trouble understanding you is the diaper thing. We were talking about your interests....you like to see children in diapers or adults in diapers? Wait you said adults do not arouse you so you mean your interests lie in seeing children in diapers?

What does everyone think about an older man wanting to have sex with girls after they've hit puberty, but before they hit the age of majority?

ok I have either had too much cold medicine or you arent being clear. So you are opposed to copulation of little girls because you do not want to hurt them? Where I'm having trouble understanding you is the diaper thing. We were talking about your interests....you like to see children in diapers or adults in diapers? Wait you said adults do not arouse you so you mean your interests lie in seeing children in diapers?

Yes.

The thought of children in diapers or having wetting accidents arouses me.

What does everyone think about an older man wanting to have sex with girls after they've hit puberty, but before they hit the age of majority?

Many are not as apposed to it.

Many are not as apposed to it.

That would make sense I suppose. Im for it, personally. But only if they get married and its to have children.

Does anyone know how many children the average paedophile will molest in their lifetime? According to John Douglas, former FBI profiler, that number is over 100. If not caught.

Unfortunately for the victims, anyone sexually attracted to children is extremely likely to act upon it. Just like a bisexual, gay or heterosexual person is going to act on their sexual desires at some point or another. Those that "only fantasise but never act on it" are already travelling down the slippery slope to becoming a perpetrator. They will begin going to places where there are a lot of children, in their mind just to look, not to touch. Because, there's no harm in just looking, right? Then, they will begin to interact with the children, to feed the fantasy. Then the fantasy will become overpowering. And they will act on it.

Noone in their right mind would agree that a homosexual person could be "rehabilitated" to become "normal" that is to say, heterosexual. Fortunately for them, they don't need to. Theirs is a perfectly acceptable orientation, they are not harming anyone, and are in fact, no different at the fundamental level than heterosexuals. Paedophiles, by the very nature of their orientation, are directly responsible for causing harm. There is a victim every time they act on their desires, no matter how "indirectly" (i.e. through the viewing of child pornography). It is therefore, my personal belief that those who are convicted of molestation or child pornography offences be confined to prison for the rest of their lives. For their own good, and the good of all children.

So 46000 priests in the United States by 100 kids, each... sheesh. *knows not all priests are molesters, but it's funny anyway*

Part B part of the definition: acted, distressed, interpersonal relationships.

...but if you acted, woudn't you have met that part of the definition?

It is an "or" list, not "and" right?

DSM4-TR
Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.


There is mine where is yours?

So, if you acted on your desires, you would have met the requirements of B.

My assertion is, you have desires which, if acted on, would make you mentally ill by your posted definition.

So, if you acted on your desires, you would have met the requirements of B.

My assertion is, you have desires which, if acted on, would make you mentally ill by your posted definition.

Yes

If acted on I'd fit the APA definition of a pedophile.

...but if you acted, woudn't you have met that part of the definition?

It is an "or" list, not "and" right?

Part B is an "or/and" listing the pedophile diagnostic criteria of A, B, and C is an "and" listing.

It is an "or" list, not "and" right?
It is an "and/or" list, yes.

Yes

If acted on I'd fit the APA definition of a pedophile.

So you have desires which, if acted on, meet the definition of mental illness.

Shouldn't this fact spur you to some preventative measures?

NERVUN, dont even waste your breath. He knows good and well that he's a pedophile and he's seriously trying to find someone to tell him that its ok. The only ones who will tell him that are fellow pedophiles.


Isnt that like saying "All fags are evil, and anyone who doesnt agree is a fag."?

If he hasnt acted on anything, then he hasnt done any harm.
However, if he thinks he might, then he needs to get some help before he hurts someone.

Dark Shadowy Nexus get help. You're a timebomb. Help or isolation are the only safe ways to deal with you, short of killing you. I doubt you have a death wish, and incarceration is severely overrated. So get help.

*bangs head on table*

Pedophiles are NOT NECCESSARILY child molesters. I agree that convicted child molesters should be locked up, but a pedophile who does not act on his or her urges should not. It's difficult for them, and I get pissed off every time someone says "OMG EVUL PEDOS!!!!!11111!!1!"

Dark Shadowy Nexus get help. You're a timebomb. Help or isolation are the only safe ways to deal with you, short of killing you. I doubt you have a death wish, and incarceration is severely overrated. So get help.


and it sounds like you have convicted him, even though he may not have done anything.

That depends on how you define evil I guess, but for the sake of argument; only those who act on their desire is evil. Hurt noone and all that.

and it sounds like you have convicted him, even though he may not have done anything.Depends on what you mean. A professional's aid will help determine whether or not he'll be able to control his urges. If he can, then there's no problem. His word alone, however, is not good enough. I'm certain you wouldn't put much weight on my reasurrances, if I confronted you with a loaded gun, a manic smile & told you I didn't mean you any harm.

This situation is no different. Clearly DSN has a problem. Why the hell should he not seek help, when his problem might very well be immensely damaging both to himself & others?
Is there some sort of shame in confronting it & dealing with it?

Depends on what you mean. A professional's aid will help determine whether or not he'll be able to control his urges. If he can, then there's no problem. His word alone, however, is not good enough. I'm certain you wouldn't put much weight on my reasurrances, if I confronted you with a loaded gun, a manic smile & told you I didn't mean you any harm.

This situation is no different. Clearly DSN has a problem. Why the hell should he not seek help, when his problem might very well be immensely damaging both to himself & others?
Is there some sort of shame in confronting it & dealing with it?

No, in fact, if he feels like he may actually want to engage in that sort of activity, I highly encourage him to seek professional help immediately.
However, saying things like he should be branded a criminal becuase of the way he feels isnt right, either.
If he hasnt done anything wrong, he hasnt commited a crime.

No, in fact, if he feels like he may actually want to engage in that sort of activity, I highly encourage him to seek professional help immediately.
However, saying things like he should be branded a criminal becuase of the way he feels isnt right, either.
If he hasnt done anything wrong, he hasnt commited a crime.Most societies have laws regarding things known as criminal neglect. Those laws predominantly deal with putting people & creatures in harm's way through negligence.

I don't see how not seeking help to deal with a problem that is known to be devastating to both self & others, isn't neglect.

Most societies have laws regarding things known as criminal neglect. Those laws predominantly deal with putting people & creatures in harm's way through negligence.

I don't see how not seeking help to deal with a problem that is known to be devastating to both self & others, isn't neglect.


Becuase if he isnt hurting anyone else, its none of anyones elses business what floats his boat.
I personally dont think fantasy is harmful, as long as it never becomes anything else.
BUT...as I have said, if he at all feels like fantasy isnt enough, thats where it becomes a direct, terrible problem that should be dealt with.

Im not advocating any kind of behaviour that could result in anyone getting abused, but to brand anyone a criminal before they actually commit a crime is bordering on facism.

I think almost everyone has given casual consideration to commit murder, even if temporary, and nothing ever came of it.
Should we then arrest everyone for thought-crime?

Hmm. Slightly more evil than George W. Bush.

not that I believe evil is anything more than opinion albeit in this case cruel = evil "pedo's" are very sick people how can that make you evil by any extent of the word

If someone is attracted by children but doesn't act, we can't call him (or her) evil. If he's restraining him from acting upon it because he doesn't want to harm the children, then he should even be supported, and considered as a "good" person (not acting upon your desires to avoid harming someone is definitely a "good" behaviour).

But he should be very careful, and don't hesitate to go seek for help if he feels he may fall.

Becuase if he isnt hurting anyone else, its none of anyones elses business what floats his boat.
I personally dont think fantasy is harmful, as long as it never becomes anything else.
BUT...as I have said, if he at all feels like fantasy isnt enough, thats where it becomes a direct, terrible problem that should be dealt with.

Im not advocating any kind of behaviour that could result in anyone getting abused, but to brand anyone a criminal before they actually commit a crime is bordering on facism.

I think almost everyone has given casual consideration to commit murder, even if temporary, and nothing ever came of it.
Should we then arrest everyone for thought-crime?Because everything is black & white, right?

Not only do very few people act on immediate desires to kill someone, they also normally don't derive pleasure from thinking about it or acting on those thoughts. For the vast majority of people, it's a case of conflicting emotions. People don't want to visit permanent harm on eachother. Even when overwhelmingly angry, most people stop at causing permanent damage, and very few even go that far.

Punishment for various actions serve almost no purpose for prevention, because people simply aren't thinking straight when put in those kinds of situations. If it did, there'd hardly be any murderers.

The same thing can't be said about an act of temptation. There's nothing tempting in whacking you over the head with a lead pipe a couple of times a day. At least not for people we consider fit to roam free in our societies.
There is, however, something very tempting for DSN in raping a vhild a couple of times a day. The act itself is rewarding for him.

I don't trust him to be the judge of whether he can control that urge, any more than I'd trust a starving version of you not to raid my fridge, if given the opportunity. It's possible you'd prefer starving, but I wouldn't take your word for it. You'd be inclined to lie your ass off, to maintain free access to my fridge, just like DSNs word is useless here, because he has something to gain from lying.

We know that trained professionals can both help people like DSN deal with the hand they've been dealt, and offer some fairly solid advice regarding whether or not he's as trust worthy as he maintains he is. Failing to seek out such people should make any sane person worried, and may in itself lead to DSNs failure to supress his urges, thus harming both himself & whatever poor sod he molests.

If that isn't neglect, what the fuck is?

I'm not passing judgement on pedo's in general. It's a crappy deal, and provided people try to deal with it, I have nothing but sympathy. But refusing to tackle the situation is irresponsible in the extreme. It's right up there with giving control of the US armed forces to a gaggle of PNAC people. It's no secret they're creaming their pants at the thought of devastating the lives of others while satisfying their own urges, so why put them in that position?

Recognise it for what it is. It's not the guy's own fault. No one chooses their sexuality. I'm not talking about criminalising a sexuality. It'd be like making it a crime to breathe. But some unlucky people, like DSN here, have needs that can't be fulfilled without hurting others. Most gays & many bisexuals go through severe & often suicidal depressions, because their sexuality is frowmed upon by society. The majority feels oppressed & victimised by society, and a good many of us decide to come out of the closet in what can best be described as an act of desperate defiance.

Imagine how a pedo, who can't ever live like he feels destined to, will feel. There can't be any question that the guy needs help. The justification he's been looking for on here is a crystal clear sign that he's deeply troubled. Succumbing to fabricated self-justification is the easiest thing in the world, and he is obviously doing it right now.

How is this not neglect?

How is this not neglect?


IF DSN has as little control over himself, as you assume he does, then perhaps it is.
Can you be sure that he has, or ever will abuse a child?

If you cant be sure, then, how can you claim neglect?

Can you be sure he isnt trolling on a general forum to get some perverse kick out of making people think hes a pedophile?

I havent seen him try to justify the action of pedophilia, or suggest that it could be done in some sort of "nurturing relationship" like NAMBLA does.
If he did, I would agree that he is trying to justify his desires to himself, or to anyone else.

But he hasnt.

What he has done, is more or less admit a sexual attraction to children.
While the action of sexually preying on children is truly an abomination, the fantasy of it, isnt hurting anyone.
Only DSN knows the extent to wich he is capable of.
You and I can only guess.
It would be neglectful to knowingly leave a child with a known pedophile, but how could anyone know, or be responsible, if you left that child with someone you didnt know was one?

IF DSN has as little control over himself, as you assume he does, then perhaps it is.I didn't make that assumption. I said there is reason not to trust his words, and that his behaviour here makes me question his self control.Can you be sure that he has, or ever will abuse a child?Nope. Neither can a professional, but DSN & a professional together, have a much better chance of determining & prevening it.If you cant be sure, then, how can you claim neglect?Because he, on his own, poses a clear danger to his sorroundings. Who are you trying to kid with this?Can you be sure he isnt trolling on a general forum to get some perverse kick out of making people think hes a pedophile?Nope. The thought had crossed my mind though.I havent seen him try to justify the action of pedophilia, or suggest that it could be done in some sort of "nurturing relationship" like NAMBLA does.
If he did, I would agree that he is trying to justify his desires to himself, or to anyone else.I have. A pedo looking to justify thet child molesting isn't inherently harmful on a general discussion forum that probably isn't frequented by anyone capable of helping him deal with these issues, is a pedo looking for justifications.But he hasnt.I beg to differ.What he has done, is more or less admit a sexual attraction to children.
While the action of sexually preying on children is truly an abomination, the fantasy of it, isnt hurting anyone.I never said it did. In fact, I clearly remember me saying something about it being an unfortunate situation, but no one's fault, and that criminalising it, would be no different from outlawing breathing - which is just another need we humans have & have problems with not satisfying.Only DSN knows the extent to wich he is capable of.No. There is nothing easier than to make yourself believe something that isn't true. A guy I knew killed himself with an OD after being clean for 5½ months. One little fix couldn't hurt, after all. He'd been clean for so long & blah blah blah. Another guy I knew drank himself to death, on a similar train of thoughts.

My entire point is that DSN is in no position to know what he may & may not do. I'm sure that if he could be perfectly honest about it, he'd admit as much himself.You and I can only guess.Yups, just like DSN. That's why he needs professional help to cope with his situation. It's no different from a cronic illness that require routinely treatments, like HIV.It would be neglectful to knowingly leave a child with a known pedophile, but how could anyone know, or be responsible, if you left that child with someone you didnt know was one?What does that have to do with anything?

Besides, if you consider it neglect to leave a child in the care of a person like DSN, how can you not consider it neglect when that same person doesn't seek out help?

The other bit there, is like holding someone responsible for inadvertedly stepping on a landmine in an unknown minefield, causing his torn off limbs knock out someone nearby.

I didn't make that assumption. I said there is reason not to trust his words, and that his behaviour here makes me question his self control

Well I would say that the mere fact he may indeed be a pedophile, makes him worthy of mistrust.

.Nope. Neither can a professional, but DSN & a professional together, have a much better chance of determining & prevening it.Because he, on his own, poses a clear danger to his sorroundings.

How can you say that?
How do you know for a fact if he poses a danger to anyone?
Maybe hes posted something I havent seen, but I havent read anything in this thread that condemns him.



A pedo looking to justify thet child molesting isn't inherently harmful on a general discussion forum that probably isn't frequented by anyone capable of helping him deal with these issues, is a pedo looking for justifications.

Im not so sure that IS what hes doing.
He may just be seeking reassurance that having these desires doesnt inherently make him evil.
If that is the case, then I agree.
If the scenario you extort is true, and it may well be, then this thread is a red flag.

.
My entire point is that DSN is in no position to know what he may & may not do. I'm sure that if he could be perfectly honest about it, he'd admit as much himself. That's why he needs professional help to cope with his situation.

He isnt?
Youre telling me he isnt rational, or lucid?
You can be absolutely positve, that he at any minute, may attack the very first kid he sees?
Im sure he knows full well wether or not he can restrain himself.
If he has any doubt about wether he can or not, the answer is "no, you cant."

Besides, if you consider it neglect to leave a child in the care of a person like DSN, how can you not consider it neglect when that same person doesn't seek out help?

Becuase to me, its similar to achoholism, or drug use.
The person is only an alchoholic, if the booze is causing a problem in his, or someone elses life.
Many people drink, not all of them become alchoholics.
Pedophiles for instance, develop an instant, severe problem anytime they act upon those desires.
If they never do, its not really a problem, is it?

The issue is, that even ONE time, can cause permanent damage to a young pysche, and emotional trauma to a young person, and the action, is, if anything truly is, and evil one.

Your right to suggest he get help, but I cant be sure of his sincerity, or his legitimacy concerning such claims.
Has he posted something else, in a similar fashion as this?

There is no such thing as "evil."

Pedophiles who act on their urges hurt children. That's why what they do is wrong. Not because of something called "evil."

Indeed. Evil is a superstitious force while wrong is an action against the individual and society committed by both individuals and societies. One absolves humanity of blame while the other does not.

I hate to sound like an apologist in front of many of you, but I have to say that I am little surprised that those orientated towards children are prepared to act on their urges.

It is very easy to say that 'only those who act on their urges, are evil' but does one trully understand those with such urges? Do you trully understand the psychological consequences of sexual repression?

Yes, sex with children is an affront to the rights of the child and is by my own definition a wrong. But to decry the folk that act on what may be an irresistable psychological urge fueled by years of 'sexual repression' as evil and wicked is far too simplistic an explanation for one such as myself.

In many respects, I hold some pity for paedophiles who must endure the horror of their own existence. Would you care to be trapped in a situation like that?

Well I would say that the mere fact he may indeed be a pedophile, makes him worthy of mistrust.So why would you take his word for what he may or may not do?How can you say that?
How do you know for a fact if he poses a danger to anyone?
Maybe hes posted something I havent seen, but I havent read anything in this thread that condemns him.M3h.. No offence, but if you're going to respond point for point, please be a bit more organised. Thanks in advance :)

He poses a danger, because he has a more or less constant desire to harm to harm others. This desire is known to increase over time, and known to be extremely hard to cope with, without the help of a trained professional.

I haven't actually read this entire thread, but he posted another thread where he tried to explore just how sexual abuse of children is inherently harmful to them. Not only does that in itself make all sorts of alarm bells ring in my mind, but he was fairly adamand in his refusal to consider some of the musings of various posters.

I'm not a professional, but I've dealt with my fair share of adicts, and I'd like to think I know attempts at self-justification when I see them. And since DSN here isn't the only one who'll suffer from fuck-ups on his part, I don't see how this isn't geglect.He may just be seeking reassurance that having these desires doesnt inherently make him evil.
If that is the case, then I agree.
If the scenario you extort is true, and it may well be, then this thread is a red flag.Well, if it really is a simple case of seeking recognition that he's a human being, then professional help would still be a much better avenue.

Like I've said before, I don't consider him evil. He's just a terribly unlucky person in a horrible situation, a situation that he almost certainly can't deal with on his own.

But failure to deal with his problem, results in some truely vile & gruesome acts. Acts that cannot possibly be tolerated or forgiven. He knows & recognises his situation. Failure to act accordingly can't possibly be excused.He isnt?
Youre telling me he isnt rational, or lucid?No he isn't. And yes, I am telling you he cannot be rational about it. I don't know of any child molesters who don't feel guilty about their actions, and fully or partially regret them.

If you do not trust him to be truthful, how can you trust him to be rational?
Do you consider child molesting the act of a sane person?

Being lucid & being in full control of one's faculties, is two different things. Recently recovering alcoholics have safety net's, because they cannot be trusted to act rationally, no matter how lucid they may appear. Recovering alcoholics in general, have safety net's because they know they can't trust themselves 100%.

People with overwhelming desires to do various things, can't be trusted not to. Not without hard work & solid support from others.You can be absolutely positve, that he at any minute, may attack the very first kid he sees?
Im sure he knows full well wether or not he can restrain himself.
If he has any doubt about wether he can or not, the answer is "no, you cant."No I don't expect him to go out & rape someone in the next 5 minutes, though I'm not in a position to know. It just strikes me, severely limited knowledge & all, that he'd most likely isolate himself somewhat & not discuss these things, before he succumbs. But again, the fact that he's apparently been seeking justifications, does not bode well for the future, in my opinion.

I am quite sure he is in no position to know whether or not he can restrain himself. And the last person I'd trust to be the judge of that, would be him on his own. If he was getting help, I'd take his word for it without any major reservations, unless whoever helped him said otherwise.Becuase to me, its similar to achoholism, or drug use.I agree. Hence why I went on with old stories.Many people drink, not all of them become alchoholics.I think maybe this is where we see things differently. People don't become alcoholics because a beer looks at them funny. People either are or aren't alcoholics. Only they don't find out until after they start drinking.

Adictive behaviour & certain personality traits, however, are usually a pretty good indication. Sadly most people can't notice such things in themselves - and probably wouldn't take them seriously, if they could.Pedophiles for instance, develop an instant, severe problem anytime they act upon those desires.
If they never do, its not really a problem, is it?Like above, we disagree here, and I'm pretty sure research is on my side. Pedo's don't instantly develop anything. They develop a harmful sexuality, just like you developed your sexuality - over time, from a wide range of factors.

Some can't control their desires, whereas others can. People are rarely 100% pedo. They're more or less hungry for children, and stronger the inclination, the more a non-molesting life will be comparable to celibacy. Incidentially, this probably explains why there's so comparatively many child molesting Catholic priests. They may well have sought to reinforce their absinance by joining a group of others who can't have sex.

Unfortunately, there's no reason to be optimistic about the human ability to supress the sex drive, without extensive councelling. It's the only treatment realiable treatment we have. And yet, it isn't a bullet proof treatment, and it certainly isn't a cure.Your right to suggest he get help, but I cant be sure of his sincerity, or his legitimacy concerning such claims.Only he can, but if he is indeed a pedo, not seeking treatment would be a crime in my opinion. It's begging something beyond horror.

So you have desires which, if acted on, meet the definition of mental illness.

Shouldn't this fact spur you to some preventative measures?

Preventitive measures? How can the religious right preach abstinance and expect it to be an impossability at the same time?

Dark Shadowy Nexus get help. You're a timebomb. Help or isolation are the only safe ways to deal with you, short of killing you. I doubt you have a death wish, and incarceration is severely overrated. So get help.

Get help your superstitious ready to burn the first person that looks like a witch to you.

Depends on what you mean. A professional's aid will help determine whether or not he'll be able to control his urges. If he can, then there's no problem. His word alone, however, is not good enough. I'm certain you wouldn't put much weight on my reasurrances, if I confronted you with a loaded gun, a manic smile & told you I didn't mean you any harm.

This situation is no different. Clearly DSN has a problem. Why the hell should he not seek help, when his problem might very well be immensely damaging both to himself & others?
Is there some sort of shame in confronting it & dealing with it?

You care none about me The Similized world

Preventitive measures? How can the religious right preach abstinance and expect it to be an impossability at the same time?

I'm far from religious. Find a secular, left-wing therapist. I'm sure that's not hard.

Again, you have an urge that, if acted on, meets your posted definition of mental illness.

How do you think you should deal with that?

You care none about me The Similized world

Because he won't tell you what you want to hear?

His response showed a lot of regard for your well-being, and that of others.

Even if you disagree with his view, his observation was not callous.

Sex and children seem to be two subjects that set people off. People are always protective of children and sex is seen by a lot of people as evidence of corruption. I notice that pedophiles are seen by a lot of people as inherently evil and I can only wonder why.

It is related to the abuse of children and while that is a horrible thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that this strange lust is indicative of ultimate evil.

Yes, I agree that people with these tendencies should not be put into areas where they will be tempted.

No, I do not agree with that point of view. Yet at the same time, I believe that a blanket villification would also be wrong. In the end, people are just people to me, everyone is tempted, but some succumb to temptations more than others. I believe that the temptation itself is not inherently evil though it is problematic, however the action of doing so would be, because of the high potential for damage and emotional abuse.

To put it bluntly, I refuse to believe that someone who harms people for fun or manipulates them without remorse is less evil that someone who is mentally aroused by the throught of a child yet does not act on it.

The blanket villification only does more harm then good because it forces people with such tendencies to internalize it until it festers inside of them. It should be condemned yet, there is a limit on how far that should go.

Because he won't tell you what you want to hear?

His response showed a lot of regard for your well-being, and that of others.

Even if you disagree with his view, his observation was not callous.

Nah

I've seen it before.

People claim abstinance education is there to protect kids from pregnancy and disease. Truth is no it's not abstinance education is to keep children sexually pure. Pregnancy and disease is justifiable Gods wrath, People claim they are against abortion becuase it cuases the women who get one to have depression. Tturh is they are against abortion becuase they believe spiritual and not a physical diffinition of life and to them abortion is murder. It's intelectual dishonesty.

Why is it that only pedophiles need to pay God awful therapy costs to keep them from acting out while everyone else gets off scott free?

Nah

I've seen it before.

So, you've made up your mind and can't take his comment at face value without projecting your presuppositions.


People claim abstinance education is there to protect kids from pregnancy and disease. Truth is no it's not abstinance education is to keep children sexually pure. Pregnancy and disease is justifiable Gods wrath, People claim they are against abortion becuase it cuases the women who get one to have depression. Tturh is they are against abortion becuase they believe spiritual and not a physical diffinition of life and to them abortion is murder. It's intelectual dishonesty.

I'm not against abortion and I'm not in favor of publicly mandated abstinance education. I'm against adults sexually touching children.


Why is it that only pedophiles need to pay God awful therapy costs to keep them from acting out while everyone else gets off scott free?

Sex offenders of other kinds also can benefit from therapy, and also have to pay for it. So do domestic abusers, substance abusers, kleptomaniacs, and also people who have urges which, if acted on, would meet your posted definition of mental illness.

How do you think you should deal with your urges that, when culminated, will cause you to be mentally ill by your posted definition?

How do you think you should deal with your urges that, when culminated, will cause you to be mentally ill by your posted definition?

How about,,,,,,

Not act on it. It is less expencive won't put me debt.

Sex offenders of other kinds also can benefit from therapy, and also have to pay for it. So do domestic abusers, substance abusers, kleptomaniacs, and also people who have urges which, if acted on, would meet your posted definition of mental illness.

How do you think you should deal with your urges that, when culminated, will cause you to be mentally ill by your posted definition?

All the above acted on it. No one should be able to punish you for your thoughts.

If I'm correct, the main question is whether or not we can trust people not to act on it and whether we should or not, right?

Nah

I've seen it before.

People claim abstinance education is there to protect kids from pregnancy and disease. Truth is no it's not abstinance education is to keep children sexually pure. Pregnancy and disease is justifiable Gods wrath, People claim they are against abortion becuase it cuases the women who get one to have depression. Tturh is they are against abortion becuase they believe spiritual and not a physical diffinition of life and to them abortion is murder. It's intelectual dishonesty.

Why is it that only pedophiles need to pay God awful therapy costs to keep them from acting out while everyone else gets off scott free?I'm an atheist humanist anarchist.
I'd never in a million years recommend anyone seeking religious councelling.
I'm pro-choice.
I'm absolutely for extensive sex education, partly because I believe people like yourself would have an easier time dealing with your problems, if you'd had proper education early on.
I believe there's overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that abstinence is impossible for almost 100% of our species.
I don't believe there can be any excuse for rape, neither of adults nor children.
... And I have absolutely no clue where quoted bollox came from.

Again, seek qualified professional help, and do it now. Until you do, you'll be quite right about me not caring about you. You know you have a problem. You know failure to deal with it on your part, will cause no end of misery. Until you start taking responsibility for yourself & face up to your problems, I have no sympathy for you what so ever.

If I'm correct, the main question is whether or not we can trust people not to act on it and whether we should or not, right?

Pedophiles are expected to act on it hetrophiles homophiles are are not.

Again, seek qualified professional help, and do it now. Until you do, you'll be quite right about me not caring about you. You know you have a problem. You know failure to deal with it on your part, will cause no end of misery. Until you start taking responsibility for yourself & face up to your problems, I have no sympathy for you what so ever.

There is no cure for sexual preference. How long does professional help take? Would you consider a therapist who tries to straighten homosexuals professional help? Or how about one who finds multipul personalities or helps people recover memories of past abuse like say satanic ritual sexual abuse?

How about,,,,,,

Not act on it. It is less expencive won't put me debt.

How certain are you of your ability to "not act on it"?

There is no cure for sexual preference.Which I also explicitly stated earlier.

How long does professional help take?The rest of your life, presumably. Unless someone suddenly invents a method for altering human sexuality, it'll always be an issue for you.

Would you consider a therapist who tries to straighten homosexuals professional help?Not unless you're desperately trying to "quit" being a homosexual, are completely clueless & slightly insane. But what does this have to do with your pedo problem?

Or how about one who finds multipul personalities or helps people recover memories of past abuse like say satanic ritual sexual abuse?I'm getting the impression you're asking whether I'd advice you to seek out witch doctors, quacks & the terminally insane. I'm not.

I'm assuming you're American. If that is indeed the case, it won't be a problem for you to find a trained professional, specialising in helping pedo's live with their sexuality. If you contact your doctor, he or she can both help you get in touch with a bunch of professionals & help advise you on how you can seek funding to help cover the costs.

As I've previously stated, I don't consider your problem evil, your fault or radically different from any other cronic handicap. But I do consider you a bloody great fool & a dangerous lunatic, if you don't start dealing with your problem. Why won't you deal with your sexuality? Do you think it'll just go away if you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears & go "lalalalala!"?

Those who act of their 'urge' to have sex with children should face the death penalty and if they are caught red handed, then they do not even need to go through the process of going to court for trial, they can be taken out of the building that they are caught in and shot.
And I guess we can do the same thing to thieves and murderers? You are one crazy kitten...Next you'll be saying that we should havbe Judges like in that Sylvester Stallone-movie, Judge Dredd as well, and they should be able to kill you if they suspect you of anything, i suppose?

I would also like to see the execution of child abusers to be filmed publicly and shown on national television, to send a clear message to the nation, that this sick and evil practice would not be tolerated under any circumstances. I would like for all religious nuts do be dealt with the same way, but guess what? Not gonna happen.

Why gives these degenerates the chance to go into mental institutions, why waste public money that should be spent on the innconet mentally ill who really do need therapy. Why bother with keeping prisoners? Why don't we just execute anyone who's committed 2 crimes, be it littering or murder it doesn't mather...

Given that English Law is so soft and tolerant of child abuse, I would urge any person who came across a child abuser, to kill them, if you can get away with it.
sick pup...

My personal opinion: Pedophiles are as ok as anyone else, they are ordinary human beings and should be allowed to have their own life, so what if they fantasize about the girl next door and she's only 7 or something, it doesn't really hurt her, not until the Pedophile does anything about it anyway.

We will all face an end and nothingness and everything we have ever done or learned will have been in vain so it doesn't mather.

on the Evilness Scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most depraved kind of sicko criminal deviant and 1 being innocent and pure as myself, pedophiles rank in at about 8.

This is only the case because sadly, there are worse things than simply getting off on children. For example, getting off on them AND mutilating them AND kidnapping AND sodomizing the corpse AND mailing pieces of the body to family members for Christmas.

Human ingenuity: re-defining evil with each headline.

Umm, that would not be a pedophile. That would be a murdering pedophile.

Which I also explicitly stated earlier.

The rest of your life, presumably. Unless someone suddenly invents a method for altering human sexuality, it'll always be an issue for you.

Not unless you're desperately trying to "quit" being a homosexual, are completely clueless & slightly insane. But what does this have to do with your pedo problem?

I'm getting the impression you're asking whether I'd advice you to seek out witch doctors, quacks & the terminally insane. I'm not.

I'm assuming you're American. If that is indeed the case, it won't be a problem for you to find a trained professional, specialising in helping pedo's live with their sexuality. If you contact your doctor, he or she can both help you get in touch with a bunch of professionals & help advise you on how you can seek funding to help cover the costs.

As I've previously stated, I don't consider your problem evil, your fault or radically different from any other cronic handicap. But I do consider you a bloody great fool & a dangerous lunatic, if you don't start dealing with your problem. Why won't you deal with your sexuality? Do you think it'll just go away if you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears & go "lalalalala!"?

Do you think there is such a thing as a therpist who actually knows what they are doing?

Life long therapy oh that will go over well.

No I don't think my sexual interest will go away.

Part of the reason I do have a problem is becuase shrinks created the illusion that the general public has accepted. Shrinks are responsable for the witch hunt. They are to blame. Shrinks created the homophile scare. Shrinks created the satanic ritual sexual abuse scare. A freightened public makes them rich. There shouldn't be a psychological profession period.

Part of the reason I do have a problem is becuase shrinks created the illusion that the general public has accepted. Shrinks are responsable for the witch hunt. They are to blame. Shrinks created the homophile scare. Shrinks created the satanic ritual sexual abuse scare. A freightened public makes them rich. There shouldn't be a psychological profession period.

Are you a scientologist?

Do you think there is such a thing as a therpist who actually knows what they are doing?

Life long therapy oh that will go over well.

No I don't think my sexual interest will go away.

Part of the reason I do have a problem is becuase shrinks created the illusion that the general public has accepted. Shrinks are responsable for the witch hunt. They are to blame. Shrinks created the homophile scare. Shrinks created the satanic ritual sexual abuse scare. A freightened public makes them rich. There shouldn't be a psychological profession period.

I don't believe that's fair. The psycology and psychiatry profession were one of the first to remove homosexuality as a mental disease when presented with actual proof to the contrary. And frankly the psycological profession would not be able to do such a thing if the general public did not believe so in the first place. The things that you are blaming on psycologists is simply too large to blame on them alone and by that mode of arguement it indicates that before the profession existed such problems were not a problem. This is not the case of some grand conspiracy theory on the part of Christians, psycologist or anyone in general.

The fact is that mental problems, personality disorders and irrational human behavior will always exist. If your definition of shrinks is people who try and diagnose mental illnesses and problem, then such a definition is still problematic.

The study of mental illness has not always been correct but it has created a greater understanding of the general mental processing of people. Our current understanding is a result of such attempts to study and acknowlege unexplained behaviors from epilepsy to insanity. Even our greater acceptance has been largely aided by the attempt to understand the human mind. To place such a large blame on a singular group would be irresponsible.

I don't believe that's fair. <Snip>Moreover, this isn't a case of blaming people for their troubles. The specialists are there to help you cope with your problems & help you live a normal life. I have no idea what you could possibly have against that. Nobody is going to drug you, incarcerate your, or otherwise infringe on your life & rights. And they're not going to proclaim your predicament to the world either.

Sounds to me like you're just trying to rationalise your dread of taking responsibility for your life.

The primary reason for participating in general society, is to enable yourself & others to do what you can't do on your own. Take that to heart. There's not a reason in the world for not seeking help to deal with your situation. Even if you don't believe you'll benefit from that help, it can't harm you, and may well stop you from harming others.

Take them out to the street publically flog them castrate them and finally end their wretched lives by impaling them laterally leaving the corpse to rot and be eaten by the beast As a person who has suffered at the hands of one of these monsters I feel this is the only course of action that can be taken I actually feel that this is being merciful to the Paedo.

Part of the reason I do have a problem is becuase shrinks created the illusion that the general public has accepted. .


No.

The entirety of the problem is that you have a sexual attraction to children.
Blaming anyone else for this is simply wrong.
The medical community may be far from perfect, but labeling them all evil, is no more accurate than anyone else labelling you as evil for your situation.

The only question is:

Do you think, or can you ever envision a time where you may act on these desires.
If the answer isnt "no", you better get some help, before you do something stupid, and end up in prison, or worse.

What in the blue hell are you smoking?

Where in the OP do you see anything about DSN being a peadophile?

In a now deleted thread that he started himself and told everyone that he was himself.

As a victim of a pervert myself as a child, I am not going to say what I think on this public forum.

What specialist would care about a pedophile? Of what consequence would there be to outing a pedophile? I can't think of any. there may be a supposed prohibition against it but it would never be enforced. The general public believes pedophiles are monsters the psycological profession believes nothing different.

Actually

In truth I did find a therapist by the name of Phillip Zeppetelo who works at 3300 James Street in Syracuse NY right next to the eating disorder clinic. Still I do not intend to see him for a life time.

Also

Media right now is playing a very large role in creating the witch hunt but,,,,

Licenced psychologists making statements such as pedophiles seek after power or there is a cycle of sexual abuse or sexual abuse is always cuases great life long truama or any of the great many ignorant statements they made when there has hardly been any study hasn't helped much.

Still the profession needs a lot of work. Much of the profession is still bound in superstition much more so than the non mental health, mental health field.

Does anyone know how many children the average paedophile will molest in their lifetime? According to John Douglas, former FBI profiler, that number is over 100. If not caught.

Unfortunately for the victims, anyone sexually attracted to children is extremely likely to act upon it. Just like a bisexual, gay or heterosexual person is going to act on their sexual desires at some point or another. Those that "only fantasise but never act on it" are already travelling down the slippery slope to becoming a perpetrator. They will begin going to places where there are a lot of children, in their mind just to look, not to touch. Because, there's no harm in just looking, right? Then, they will begin to interact with the children, to feed the fantasy. Then the fantasy will become overpowering. And they will act on it.

Noone in their right mind would agree that a homosexual person could be "rehabilitated" to become "normal" that is to say, heterosexual. Fortunately for them, they don't need to. Theirs is a perfectly acceptable orientation, they are not harming anyone, and are in fact, no different at the fundamental level than heterosexuals. Paedophiles, by the very nature of their orientation, are directly responsible for causing harm. There is a victim every time they act on their desires, no matter how "indirectly" (i.e. through the viewing of child pornography). It is therefore, my personal belief that those who are convicted of molestation or child pornography offences be confined to prison for the rest of their lives. For their own good, and the good of all children.

cant add much to that...well said

What specialist would care about a pedophile?Anyone specialising in the field. It's what they do for a living.. You might as well be asking what trainspotter would be interested in trainspotting.Of what consequence would there be to outing a pedophile?I've had to put up with my fair share of abuse for being bisexual. I can unfortunately easily imagine how people would react, if rumours started circulating about you.I can't think of any. there may be a supposed prohibition against it but it would never be enforced. The general public believes pedophiles are monsters I'm not up on American sex offender legislation, but it would surprise me if they'd outlawed sexual fantasies.the psycological profession believes nothing different.That's rubbish. If it's that hard for you to get help in the US, move to the UK. You can get proper help there, and it's free if you get citizenship.In truth I did find a therapist by the name of Phillip Zeppetelo who works at 3300 James Street in Syracuse NY right next to the eating disorder clinic. Still I do not intend to see him for a life time.Why not? And why not try someone else? Or a bunch, for that matter?

Also <Snip>Sorry mate, I don't buy that bullshit for a second. The media isn't after you, people are. I try to be a very openminded individual, but I promise you I'd kill you with my bare hands if you ever touched one of my friends kids. And I do mean kill you.

If you can't understand why that is, it's just all the more reason for you to seek help immediately.

Psychiatrists aren't out to hurt you, or hold your disorder against you. The only two things they exist for, is to help you live a normal & happy life with your problem, and help you avoid harming others. They're not out to hurt you or get rich off you, that's just classic idiotic excuses you make up, to avoid confronting your problems.
You think like an adict. Get over it, nothing but horror lie down that path.

I have read through this thread, I saw that your interest lays in 'wetting accidents and diapers', I take that to mean that you must be sexually stimulated by children passing urine other than in the toiolet. This is usually done by VERY young children, pre schoolers in fact. You seem to me to be indicating that you 'have not acted' on these desires, but have admitted to being aroused by wet diapers and underwear. How do you know that a small child has wet its diaper, unless you are in contact with the child? do you have access to toddlers? I do not normally see children wetting themselves in the course of my daily life, and even when my own children were small, it was not something that was obvious and certainly not to the casual observer. You are attempting in some way to either get justification or maybe just get a thrill from the reactions of the other posters on this thread. Maybe the real reason you keep starting these threads is to make conact with others who share your urges and sexual disfunction?

You are clearly an educated person, with a quick mind and a sharp tongue. Whatever argument is brought against you, you counter. I am not going to be supprised if you pick up mine for spelling mistakes or some other innacuracy, but I am very distressed by the thought of people like you being able to walk the street and me not knowing who you are. I don't care if you are gay, I don't care if you are fat, I don't care if you are black, white, or orange, I DO care if you go home and masturbate because a kid wet itself, or you hang around places with little kids in just wishing for one to have an accident because you get off on it.

In your mind, you think that as long as you don't 'physically' hurt the child then it's ok. In your now deleted thread you seem to say more or less that, that sexual play was not as bad a physical abuse. I would rather have been beaten than abused and just because I did not fight and scream and kick, it did not mean that I was not terrified and am permanently scarred by the expecrience. You are not going to listen to any argument against your belief that it is harmless and ok, because it is not what you want. You don't want to be enlightened to the fact that its wrong because you are happy in yourself that it isn't. You don't want to get help, because you don't think you need it.

Can I ask you though, do your family know? do your friends and workmates know? do your neigbours and community know? does your Mum know? Does she say to her friends 'here is my son, he is turned on by kids who wet themselves, but it's ok, he NEVER rapes them or anyhting horrid like that..'

Keep away from children, you are a danger to them, even though you dont want to believe you are. Just by the fact that you are stimulted by them means that you will seek them out. STAY AWAY from children and never ever think that sexual attention is ever wanted or sought by innocents, they do not understand and just because they don't understand makes it wrong.

You think like an adict. Get over it, nothing but horror lie down that path.

You have no degree in psychiatry.

Snip

Seen this stuff before never understood it.

Please discribe how being beaten would be better than what you went through.

Give me the low down on your experience please.

You have no degree in psychiatry.
And you do?

Wait a day and see that yet again you are trying to shield yourself, trying to come up with some reason not to confront this as the problem it is and can be.

You've already started down the path, you're starting to build in your own mind excuses as to why you are not a pedophile, or why the medical profession or mental health profession is againt you for no real reason. Such is the way of paranoia, but it also leads to you slowly deciding that there is nothing wrong with your desires. Not only do they not need to be controled, they can be fullfilled. They actually won't hurt, as a matter of fact, they may benifit the child (which you hinted at in a previous thread).

It's a very short hope from constructing these excuses and believing them to then putting them into action.

Isnt that like saying "All fags are evil, and anyone who doesnt agree is a fag."?
If he hasnt acted on anything, then he hasnt done any harm.
However, if he thinks he might, then he needs to get some help before he hurts someone.


No its nothing like saying that.:confused: Dont be ridiculous. Neither you nor I know if he has acted on his impulses or not. He could have acted on it since this thread was made for all we know. I think my level of concern is well beyond valid here. It has nothing to do with homosexuality and how dare you compare the two. Being gay isnt illegal, having sex with children is.


There's nothing wrong with sex between two consenting adults no matter what sex they are or what their sexual preferences are. There IS something wrong with inflicting mental and physical pain on to a child.

Seen this stuff before never understood it.

Please discribe how being beaten would be better than what you went through.

Give me the low down on your experience please.

Why? so you can get off on it? or because you think it might persuade you to change your opinion in some way?

Being beaten would have meant physical pain that would have healed and stopped, being abused in the way I was, has never gone away, never left me, it haunts the back of my mind and effects my adult enjoyment of sex. It gave me a sexual awareness beyond my years and made me different from my peers, I felt shame and disgust, and even though it was many, many years ago, I can still smell him, hear him, see him...try to tell me it would be better to 'play house' and have him 'show' me things...than him give me one good beating. CONVINCE ME, I want to know how. He never thought he had done anything wrong, he felt that he had not 'hurt' me, he hurt me more than anybody else in my life. I wish him torment and sleepless nights, I wish him to feel sick when having sex with the person he loves with all his heart, I wish him discomfort at things he should enjoy, for the whole of the rest of his life.


BTW...you didn't do me the common courtesy of answering my question...

No its nothing like saying that.:confused: Dont be ridiculous. Neither you nor I know if he has acted on his impulses or not. He could have acted on it since this thread was made for all we know. I think my level of concern is well beyond valid here. It has nothing to do with homosexuality and how dare you compare the two. Being gay isnt illegal, having sex with children is.


There's nothing wrong with sex between two consenting adults no matter what sex they are or what their sexual preferences are. There IS something wrong with inflicting mental and physical pain on to a child.

Ok.

Apparently, you didnt get the laden sarcasm within my words that you quoted.

You said something to the tone of "Hes a pedophile, and anyone that supports him is a pedophile!"

I was trying to show you the hippocracy of your words, by using a similar, albiet outlandish statement.
You didnt see it, becuase you didnt want to, or I didnt get the message across.

At any rate, my point is, that most of us can all agree that acting on any kind of sexual desires involving children is barbaric at best, evil at worst.
However, simply possessing these desires, doesnt make him a bad person.
We cant know if he has, or has not acted, so it is wrong to villify him, unless we know.
However, we can, denouce any kind of support for him, if he is, indeed looking for support, to act.

are they sick? no. they sure as hell are different. interfering with kids in any civilised society is a no no. you touch my kids i want your bollocks on a sharp pointy stick... sex between conscenting adults, however they see fit to perform it, is entirely their concern. as far as i'm concerned PAEDOPHILES (note the spelling) fall into the same category as rapists. and believe me, honest criminals abhorr these perverts more than any normal citizen. nonce, is an abbreviation of nonsense, which, in a criminals eyes it is. these perverts shouldnt be put into prisons with decent law breaking bank robbers etc...

they need psychiatric help. a size 10 in the goolies wouldnt hurt either, well actually yes it would hurt, wouldnt it? kids who get interfered with have fucked up lives. it impacts through their relationships, and causes so much grief they often need psychiatric help themselves, or they have a string of failed relationships...

i say put them amongst the general prison population, and let justice be served. Big Brian, the ballsy bank robber from Bermondsey would like to share his affections, he's doing 10 for bank robbery; whos your daddy now? fucked up, you will be.

And you do?

Wait a day and see that yet again you are trying to shield yourself, trying to come up with some reason not to confront this as the problem it is and can be.

You've already started down the path, you're starting to build in your own mind excuses as to why you are not a pedophile, or why the medical profession or mental health profession is againt you for no real reason. Such is the way of paranoia, but it also leads to you slowly deciding that there is nothing wrong with your desires. Not only do they not need to be controled, they can be fullfilled. They actually won't hurt, as a matter of fact, they may benifit the child (which you hinted at in a previous thread).

It's a very short hope from constructing these excuses and believing them to then putting them into action.

The witch hunt is real.

I don't need to believe in the imaginary to obey the law.

The mental health sciences do have a problem with superstition.

The Rind report was acurate.

You are building projections and you seem to me to be just as ignorant as all those witch hunters, commie hunters, and homo hunters where in the past.

Ok.

Apparently, you didnt get the laden sarcasm within my words that you quoted.

You said something to the tone of "Hes a pedophile, and anyone that supports him is a pedophile!"

I was trying to show you the hippocracy of your words, by using a similar, albiet outlandish statement.
You didnt see it, becuase you didnt want to, or I didnt get the message across.

At any rate, my point is, that most of us can all agree that acting on any kind of sexual desires involving children is barbaric at best, evil at worst.
However, simply possessing these desires, doesnt make him a bad person.
We cant know if he has, or has not acted, so it is wrong to villify him, unless we know.
However, we can, denouce any kind of support for him, if he is, indeed looking for support, to act.

No -I did not say anything to the effect of "anyone who supports him is a pedophile." I said he is looking for someone to say its ok and no one is going to tell him tha having sex with children is ok unless its another pedophile.

I can villify him because I have two young children, one still in diapers and he's admitting to getting off on children in diapers and children having wetting accidents. He is a potential threat to my child and everyone else's. And for all you know he could be searching for fellow pedophiles to connect/interact with or looking for more young victims. For all I know he could be undercover internet police. Since he's admitted to being a pedophile in a previous thread, then he has villified himself. In this thread his responses to "have you acted on your urges?" have been 1st "I cant say." and then2nd "No I havent." His credibility is shot with me as far as that goes and I doubt if he had acted on them if he'd admit it openly right here. Pedophiles dont always confess their crimes you know.

You are building projections and you seem to me to be just as ignorant as all those witch hunters, commie hunters, and homo hunters where in the past.

Is this because he doesn't agree with you? Are you saying that you feel persecuted? Do you feel the victim of a right wing witch hunt, because of your sexual desire? my goodness...doesn't that mean that you are actually then fullfilling the part of the definition that you said you didn't earlier in the thread?

As to your question to me, answer mine, give me an answer to my questions. I have told you how it affects me still, how I would rather have been beaten than subjected to a 'game' of show and playhouse.

No -I did not say anything to the effect of "anyone who supports him is a pedophile." I said he is looking for someone to say its ok and no one is going to tell him tha having sex with children is ok unless its another pedophile.

Where did he ask for anyone to tell him that?

I can villify him because I have two young children, one still in diapers and he's admitting to getting off on children in diapers and children having wetting accidents.

Why do I keep missing this!?
Where did he say that?



He is a potential threat to my child and everyone else's.

So is nuclear war, whats your point?


And for all you know he could be searching for fellow pedophiles to connect/interact with or looking for more young victims. For all I know he could be undercover internet police. Since he's admitted to being a pedophile in a previous thread, then he has villified himself. In this thread his responses to "have you acted on your urges?" have been 1st "I cant say." and then2nd "No I havent." His credibility is shot with me as far as that goes and I doubt if he had acted on them if he'd admit it openly right here. Pedophiles dont always confess their crimes you know.

Look, pedophilia is one of the worst crimes out there, and before I, or you, or anyone accuses anyone of being a criminal, you had better damn well have some kind of evidence.
Since this guy hasnt admitted to acting upon anything, theres no way we can know for certain.

The witch hunt is real.
In that the current atmosphere makes it next to impossible for pedophiles to seek help without seriously risking destorying their lives, yes. In that this is being driven by the mental health and medical profession to keep them in dollars, no. You're paranoid.

I don't need to believe in the imaginary to obey the law.
For now, that's the question, the problem, and the worry.

The mental health sciences do have a problem with superstition.
Prove it.

The Rind report was acurate.
Here we go again, I've already shown you that the APA and academics tore the damn thing apart and showed som serious flaws within the study and researcher bias. No, Dr Laura didn't write those papers, the APA did. Will you now accuse all of acadcemia to pandering to the religious right?

You are building projections and you seem to me to be just as ignorant as all those witch hunters, commie hunters, and homo hunters where in the past.
Sticks and stones, and you are once again attempting to shift the argument when you become aware that you have lost cover.

Though I do love the fact that everytime someone attempt to pin you down and have you prove all those wonderful alogations you toss around with abandoment, you never fail to quickly charge the other party with being ignorant, a homophobe, religious, or a witch hunter.

I am none of the above, but I do charge YOU to finally tell us why we happen to be ignorant. You keep claiming that we do not know and understand, WHAT THE BLOODY HELL ARE WE NOT UNDERSTANDING? Hmm?

I wonder what he'll call me next...?

Why? so you can get off on it? or because you think it might persuade you to change your opinion in some way?

Being beaten would have meant physical pain that would have healed and stopped, being abused in the way I was, has never gone away, never left me, it haunts the back of my mind and effects my adult enjoyment of sex. It gave me a sexual awareness beyond my years and made me different from my peers, I felt shame and disgust, and even though it was many, many years ago, I can still smell him, hear him, see him...try to tell me it would be better to 'play house' and have him 'show' me things...than him give me one good beating. CONVINCE ME, I want to know how. He never thought he had done anything wrong, he felt that he had not 'hurt' me, he hurt me more than anybody else in my life. I wish him torment and sleepless nights, I wish him to feel sick when having sex with the person he loves with all his heart, I wish him discomfort at things he should enjoy, for the whole of the rest of his life.


BTW...you didn't do me the common courtesy of answering my question...

Well this makes sense and yes in this society things like what you post here can happen as sex is so demonised in this society.

Still I'm with the Rind Report

Also to note.

People have suggested that other events in thier past lead to there destruction physical child abuse abuse being a major one. Emotional child abuse being another.

We could try replacing a few words from your paragraph above with he hit me. Now I have a hard to with relationships. I can still feel the coat hanger. I have nightmares. I can still smell the blood etc.

Not that I don't have empathy for you but. This psychological constructs are rather short in terms of scientific integrity. The claims of life impairment are just that claims. These claims have never been measured against control groups and when studies have done they have been highly biased.

An interesting study on men showed this relationship. When men where asked if they where ever molested by a teacher they gave fewer yes answers than when the question was asked as to wether they had sexual relations with a teacher.

In this witch hunter invirment although the sex may not harm the child. The values society places on sex and the reactions of others most likely will harm the child.

Thanks for your response

Why do I keep missing this!?
Where did he say that?
Gotta read back a bit.

Innocense is as immaginary as the easter bunny and sexual play not intercourse " yick " mind you is as harmful as a Nerf basket ball. Actually my interests lies more in wet pants and diapers than anything having to do with copulation.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10528924&postcount=156
Diapers expessially those for bedwetting and wet pants as it relates to children. Little girls would be physicaly injured by copulation.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10528944&postcount=159

You have no degree in psychiatry.I'm not a psychiatrist, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

You're trying to justify your sexuality. You completely fail to address the points argued in this thread, and instead aim unrelated criticism of the posters themselves.

It's a classic. You can't cope with the reality of your situation, so you feel backed into a corner. Your solution is to vilify the people you're communicating with. Try taking another look at your reactions to my posts, for example.

The one I'm responding to, is about as close as you get to addressing any of the arguments I've made, and even this one doesn't actually deal with anything I wrote. You merely assert something you can't possibly know the first thing about.

You do this with every post, both in this & the deleted thread you had.

This is serious. If you aren't just some punk having a laugh, which I doubt, you are a huge problem, both for yourself & for everyone else. I called you a timebomb earlier, and I mean it. People can't just break out of the sort of mentality you've adopted by themselves. It takes a hell of a lot of work & professional help, and preferrably a network of peers.

Here we go again, I've already shown you that the APA and academics tore the damn thing apart and showed som serious flaws within the study and researcher bias. No, Dr Laura didn't write those papers, the APA did. Will you now accuse all of acadcemia to pandering to the religious right?

The study was re-evaluted the holes where found to have holes.

I stand by my original assertion. Also the move to suppress the study was instagated by the religious right.

True the suggestion that the mental health profession created the paranioa to bring in big bucks is a paraniod conscept.

There is no cure for sexual preference.

I do agree with you there.

However, I don't personally understand how pedophilia can be a "sexual preference" when the victims are, for all practical purposes, asexual. Kids in diapers? Gender differentiation (increased muscle mass in boys, etc.) BEGINS in the body around age five but sexual maturity doesn't happen until age twelve or so, and even then many kids aren't emotionally ready to start having sex until they graduate high school.

Sure, pedophilia is only a cultural taboo, and many cultures have different rules about the age of majority and the age of consent.

The point is that pedophilia IS a cultural taboo, and it IS a crime, and it is NOT okay to approach somebody for sex when they aren't capable of understanding the act and being able to think, speak, and act for themselves. It is NOT okay to force yourself on somebody who can't fight back. It is NOT okay to use somebody for sexual gratification when they're not even aware of what sex is.

This issue has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sure, it might be considered taboo by the mainstream, but when it concerns sober, consenting adults, it's not generating any lasting harm. You're talking about rape, and abuse, and lasting mental, physical, and emotional damage.

I'm not a psychiatrist, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

You're trying to justify your sexuality. You completely fail to address the points argued in this thread, and instead aim unrelated criticism of the posters themselves.

It's a classic. You can't cope with the reality of your situation, so you feel backed into a corner. Your solution is to vilify the people you're communicating with. Try taking another look at your reactions to my posts, for example.

The one I'm responding to, is about as close as you get to addressing any of the arguments I've made, and even this one doesn't actually deal with anything I wrote. You merely assert something you can't possibly know the first thing about.

You do this with every post, both in this & the deleted thread you had.

This is serious. If you aren't just some punk having a laugh, which I doubt, you are a huge problem, both for yourself & for everyone else. I called you a timebomb earlier, and I mean it. People can't just break out of the sort of mentality you've adopted by themselves. It takes a hell of a lot of work & professional help, and preferrably a network of peers.

A time bomb how?

What mode of thinking would cuase me to harm a child? Give examples please. Why isn't the potential for being convicted of a child sex crime good enough motivation for you?

BackwoodsSquatches]Where did he ask for anyone to tell him that?
Making a thread "How Evil are pedophiles" is somewhat seeking a response of "its ok or its a little bit ok or its kind of ok".

Why do I keep missing this!?

Where did he say that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10513260&postcount=97

So is nuclear war, whats your point?

My point is that the number of children sexually assaulted each year are well into the tens of thousands and thats just the cases that ARE reported. How many people have you read about being killed by nuclear war each year. If that happens, we all go.



Look, pedophilia is one of the worst crimes out there, and before I, or you, or anyone accuses anyone of being a criminal, you had better damn well have some kind of evidence.
Since this guy hasnt admitted to acting upon anything, theres no way we can know for certain


I am stating my opinion on this forum about pedophiles. If he didnt want honest responses then he shouldnt have exposed his perosnal life on an internet. As for what I'd better damn well do, you need to step back and cool off. I dont need to know for certain if he has acted on it, his desires and what gets him off is more than enough for me to be suspecting of him. I never said he was guilty. I sincerely hope hes NOT.

Non-concenting sex is always wrong. Period.
No, there are no exceptions.
No, small kids don't want to have sex with adults. Period.
To me, its seems the starter of this thread has pretty fucking serious issues which he, withouth exception, refuse to acknowledge and thus he's a liability to children all around him.
I'm not a homophobe, nor right-wing, nor religious, nor do I think that paedophilias should be round up and slaughered or anything of the like.
But I do think that the wellbeing of the children must -always- come in the first place and if you do too, you should seriously concider moving to another country and seek help there since your current location isn't hospitable enough.
But your way of thinking assure me that you won't, which is sad for all parts, especially for the kids you potentially will destroy in you process of self-fulfillment.
About everything you've said could probably be quoted from AA's "commonly heard excuses for picking up the bottle again-booklet" with a few minor tweaks towards bedwetting and whatnot.
That being said, if you ever, ever act out, I damn sure hope the parents of the children find you before the police does.

I do agree with you there.

However, I don't personally understand how pedophilia can be a "sexual preference" when the victims are, for all practical purposes, asexual. Kids in diapers? Gender differentiation (increased muscle mass in boys, etc.) BEGINS in the body around age five but sexual maturity doesn't happen until age twelve or so, and even then many kids aren't emotionally ready to start having sex until they graduate high school.

Sure, pedophilia is only a cultural taboo, and many cultures have different rules about the age of majority and the age of consent.

The point is that pedophilia IS a cultural taboo, and it IS a crime, and it is NOT okay to approach somebody for sex when they aren't capable of understanding the act and being able to think, speak, and act for themselves. It is NOT okay to force yourself on somebody who can't fight back. It is NOT okay to use somebody for sexual gratification when they're not even aware of what sex is.

This issue has nothing to do with homosexuality. Sure, it might be considered taboo by the mainstream, but when it concerns sober, consenting adults, it's not generating any lasting harm. You're talking about rape, and abuse, and lasting mental, physical, and emotional damage.

Cultural taboos come and go.

The study was re-evaluted the holes where found to have holes.
SHOW ME! Goddamn you sir, prove it. I have grown more than tired of this endless waltz where you repeat the same lines over and over again but never, ever bring proof.

I stand by my original assertion. Also the move to suppress the study was instagated by the religious right.
And here we go again. That was Congress acting against the study, academia, as usual, ignored Congress's censure and took the study to task. Funny, in all the stuff I read tearing holes in it, I didn't see ANYONE from the religious right. I didn't see Dr Laura, I didn't see Pat, I didn't see Tom Delay, I only saw a number of very respected and experianced men and women performing a peer review and finding the study had problems.

Also, as my stats professor keeps saying, we do not change the world on just one study. No one has yet been able to reproduce the results, which is highly suspect as well.

Cultural taboos come and go.

Does that make it less illegal?

Cultural taboos come and go.

Yeah, in 50 years we will laugh and say: "Haha, how silly of us, fifty years ago it was illegal to rape children... hohoho"

Your dreamworld perhaps?

About everything you've said could probably be quoted from AA's "commonly heard excuses for picking up the bottle again-booklet"

Do I have to claim belief in your ideas in order to claim that I'm not going to act out?

Yeah, in 50 years we will laugh and say: "Haha, how silly of us, fifty years ago it was illegal to rape children... hohoho"

Your dreamworld perhaps?

Maybe in 50 years it will no longer be considered rape.

Does that make it less illegal?

I didn't say it would.

Do I have to claim belief in your ideas in order to claim that I'm not going to act out?


So are you saying that you have pedophilic tendancies, but don't act on them?

I didn't say it would.

Ok. So what's this about taboos? Sure taboos may come and go. But the law at this point in time says it's illegal. So what does it matter if the taboo goes in 50 years or so?

You going to answer NERVUNs point about your supposed changed study that filled the holes? Or was he right?

Do I have to claim belief in your ideas in order to claim that I'm not going to act out?

Not at all, my ideas isn't any universal truth. However, if you were sane enough to understand what's been said, you'd also, atleast for a moment, concider that you are the problem, not the society.

Maybe in 50 years it will no longer be considered rape.

Hmmm, non-consenting sex, not rape? I think that's the definition we've had a very, very long time and by Chuck, I think it will outlast us both by a millenia.