NationStates Jolt Archive

Na, open it back up.

So, in mental institutions or jails, if they commit a crime? Or just for thought crimes?

If they commit a crime. As for thought crimes, if it could be detected, if the person commiting it has no prior crime record, he/she should be made to go counselling.

I agree with you.

By the way, how many outed pedophiles have we attracted? I know that DSN is DEAT, but we have the Five Castes, and this new fellow...any others?

Remember when NS got accused of harbouring racism? I'm amazed we haven't yet been accused of harbouring pedophiles.

I'm disgusted by the fact the pedophiles are permitted to hang out here, attempting to justify why they like to molest kids. Wouldn't surpise me if they're also using this forum as a way to meet potential prey.

First things first, we need to decide what pedophilia is. If it is an impulse to harm children, then yes measures should be taken.

If it is just a sexual attraction, we can't then lock up every pedophile when not every pedophile would ever want to harm a child.
If it is 'just a sexual attraction' then the requirement is that a pedophile must forever abstain from acting on those sexual desires. If this is a requirement, should it not also be a forced requirement? I'm not sure...(I'm thinking chemical castration here...however that plays out for both men and women)

I've seen him accused of trolling in this regard...I can't tell if that is ridiculously heavy sarcasm or just outright stupidity, and I'm not familiar enough with his posts to know if this is just his normal posting style.


You mean my normal philosophy.

Each and every instance of individual wrongdoing is the result of insufficient Government actions.
Individual free choice is the source of troubles, and not the solution of troubles.

I'm disgusted by the fact the pedophiles are permitted to hang out here, attempting to justify why they like to molest kids. Wouldn't surpise me if they're also using this forum as a way to meet potential prey.
I don't think they'd be very successful, since I believe most pedophiles preying on children over the internet lie about themselves or pose as kids in order to gain access.

But what I also don't want is them having yet another way to form a 'community' that reinforces their own beliefs about the 'rightness' of their sexual attraction.

I'm disgusted by the fact the pedophiles are permitted to hang out here, attempting to justify why they like to molest kids. Wouldn't surpise me if they're also using this forum as a way to meet potential prey.

How come? Report it to moderation forum...

You mean my normal philosophy.

Each and every instance of individual wrongdoing is the result of insufficient Government actions.
Individual free choice is the source of troubles, and not the solution of troubles.
And you're serious? Either way...extreme trolling or serious...it looks like you're not really worth debating.

I agree with you.

By the way, how many outed pedophiles have we attracted? I know that DSN is DEAT, but we have the Five Castes, and this new fellow...any others?

Remember when NS got accused of harbouring racism? I'm amazed we haven't yet been accused of harbouring pedophiles.

Just point a news organization to this thread.

I'm sure that NS would get a very public black eye, and would very rapidly change its policy on pro-pedophile posts.

I've seen him accused of trolling in this regard...I can't tell if that is ridiculously heavy sarcasm or just outright stupidity, and I'm not familiar enough with his posts to know if this is just his normal posting style.

Yeah, I'm a troll, cuz I don't like adults fucking little kids. :rolleyes:

And you're serious? Either way...extreme trolling or serious...it looks like you're not really worth debating.

I am 3-ways serious.

Governments don't rape kids.
Individuals do.

If it is 'just a sexual attraction' then the requirement is that a pedophile must forever abstain from acting on those sexual desires. If this is a requirement, should it not also be a forced requirement? I'm not sure...(I'm thinking chemical castration here...however that plays out for both men and women)

No. We must determine weather a pedo would ever be likely to harm a child first, using psycho analysis. Then lock em up if results show that they could.

Remember, i expect a majority of pedophiles are just attracted to. Doesn't mean they would rape them. It may be no different to someone attracted to women or men for some people.

Yeah, I'm a troll, cuz I don't like adults fucking little kids. :rolleyes:
Where did that come from? who accused you of being a troll?

Yeah, I'm a troll, cuz I don't like adults fucking little kids. :rolleyes:
Sorry? He's accused you of trolling?

How come? Report it to moderation forum...

Won't accomplish anything.

No. We must determine weather a pedo would ever be likely to harm a child first, using psycho analysis. Then lock em up if results show that they could.

Remember, i expect a majority of pedophiles are just attracted to. Doesn't mean they would rape them. It may be no different to someone attracted to women or men for some people.
Perhaps you also need to factor in how difficult it would be to live a lifetime of abstinence. Because frankly, I think that is what we absolutely must require of pedophiles. That is, if you believe that an adult having sex with a child is harmful, period, regardless of the circumstances, which I do. And I'm not talking about age of consent laws here....I'm talking about little children, pre-pubescent children. So, if we require that they always abstain, then why not also require that they take steps to ENSURE abstinence?

Sorry? He's accused you of trolling?

My mistake, Sin. Thought your post was from BogMarsh.

My mistake, Sin. Thought your post was from BogMarsh.
Yeah, I figured it was just a mix-up:)

No. We must determine weather a pedo would ever be likely to harm a child first, using psycho analysis. Then lock em up if results show that they could.

Remember, i expect a majority of pedophiles are just attracted to. Doesn't mean they would rape them. It may be no different to someone attracted to women or men for some people.
While I dislike pedophilia do you advocate locking up everyone that has a PROBABILITY of causing a crime?

I find that attitude almost more sick then pedophilia (and that’s saying a lot)

Perhaps you also need to factor in how difficult it would be to live a lifetime of abstinence. Because frankly, I think that is what we absolutely must require of pedophiles. That is, if you believe that an adult having sex with a child is harmful, period, regardless of the circumstances, which I do. And I'm not talking about age of consent laws here....I'm talking about little children, pre-pubescent children. So, if we require that they always abstain, then why not also require that they take steps to ENSURE abstinence?

Of course, but what if the pedo is also attracted to adults?

While I dislike pedophilia do you advocate locking up everyone that has a PROBABILITY of causing a crime?

I find that attitude almost more sick then pedophilia (and that’s saying a lot)

Welcome to Pre-crime.

While I dislike pedophilia do you advocate locking up everyone that has a PROBABILITY of causing a crime?

I find that attitude almost more sick then pedophilia (and that’s saying a lot)

Woops, let me rephrase that. Not lock up, but steralize.

While I dislike pedophilia do you advocate locking up everyone that has a PROBABILITY of causing a crime?

I find that attitude almost more sick then pedophilia (and that’s saying a lot)
Hey, even I'm straying in directions I would never actually go here...considering actions that I would never in good conscience be able to support...it shows how deep the distaste for this runs, but I can't help comparing it (unfairly) to other sexual orientations that have been traditionally found repugnant. It's hard to resist....and yet, I simply do not believe that this equates.

Welcome to Pre-crime.
Yup you dont actualy have to have done something ... if the goverment thinks you have the possibilty of sometime in the future possibly doing something wrong your rights are striped from you and you get to sit in prison

Is that as wrong to you as it is to me?

I mean seriosly like I said I was even a victem of this crime for two years and I dont advocate this extreemism

Of course, but what if the pedo is also attracted to adults?
I just don't know. Nor does this address the problem of child molestation that is committed by people who are NOT pedophiles. I just wish there was some way we could ENSURE the safety of our children without being so afraid of everyone harming them that we end up making our children into prisoners.

Hey, even I'm straying in directions I would never actually go here...considering actions that I would never in good conscience be able to support...it shows how deep the distaste for this runs, but I can't help comparing it (unfairly) to other sexual orientations that have been traditionally found repugnant. It's hard to resist....and yet, I simply do not believe that this equates.

It absolutely does not equate. Other sexual orientations involve consenting adults.

Yup you dont actualy have to have done something ... if the goverment thinks you have the possibilty of sometime in the future possibly doing something wrong your rights are striped from you and you get to sit in prison

Is that as wrong to you as it is to me?

I mean seriosly like I said I was even a victem of this crime for two years and I dont advocate this extreemism

While I don't believe you should be stripped of your rights if identified as a non-active pedophile, I believe that they should be monitored, and forced to accept psychiatric treatment against their will.

Yup you dont actualy have to have done something ... if the goverment thinks you have the possibilty of sometime in the future possibly doing something wrong your rights are striped from you and you get to sit in prison

Is that as wrong to you as it is to me?

I mean seriosly like I said I was even a victem of this crime for two years and I dont advocate this extreemism

Ok, i agree with you in terms of reality. That was just a pipe dream (to steralize potential threats, not to lock them up).

I realise it could never work in practice.

Hell, even the title of this thread disgusts me. Let's make excuses for pedophilia. Fucking sickens me.

Hey, even I'm straying in directions I would never actually go here...considering actions that I would never in good conscience be able to support...it shows how deep the distaste for this runs, but I can't help comparing it (unfairly) to other sexual orientations that have been traditionally found repugnant. It's hard to resist....and yet, I simply do not believe that this equates.
I understand … I just don’t like the idea of the government having the ability to decide that perfectly innocent people should go to prison on the probability of a crime … that is a true thought crime.

Now if someone shows a predilection or confessed wish to be with children but has not committed wrong I think that the government should do their utmost to provide this person with therapy and any other means to make sure that he does NOT commit the crime down the road.

It absolutely does not equate. Other sexual orientations involve consenting adults.
Yes, I believe that is the fundamental difference. But then pedophiles like to tangle things up with age of consent laws, as though, once again, we are really talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old.

I understand … I just don’t like the idea of the government having the ability to decide that perfectly innocent people should go to prison on the probability of a crime … that is a true thought crime.

Now if someone shows a predilection or confessed wish to be with children but has not committed wrong I think that the government should do their utmost to provide this person with therapy and any other means to make sure that he does NOT commit the crime down the road.
So you don't want the government to lock up someone who is guilty only of a thought crime, but you do want the government to monitor them for life, and actively prevent them from committing a crime in any way possible?

Won't accomplish anything.

Do it anyway. The mods will act if there's too much of that kinda posts. If they dont, you can always complain directly to Jolt forums...

So you don't want the government to lock up someone who is guilty only of a thought crime, but you do want the government to monitor them for life, and actively prevent them from committing a crime in any way possible?

That sounds fair.

Do it anyway. The mods will act if there's too much of that kinda posts. If they dont, you can always complain directly to Jolt forums...

I've gotten an unofficial warning for going after pedophiles. Apparently, that sorta shit gets tolerated here. :mad:

I've gotten an unofficial warning for going after pedophiles. Apparently, that sorta shit gets tolerated here. :mad:

Well, flaiming people, pedo or not. Is against the law of NS.

No, they are not people.

Anyone who believes they are just harmless people with a perverted sense of sexuality should volunteer in the foster care or sexual crimes fields for a while. Once you've seen an infant's mouth ripped open and scarred for life as a result of "daddy's" loving attentions you will realize that these creatures are not human. Once they commit the crime they move from disgusting animals that fantasize about it, to something akin to a demon.

I wish I believed in hell. It might make me feel there is adequate punishment available for what they do.

IMO, Anyone posessing and looking at ANY form of child pornography (that includes the sick anime that passes as "harmless") should be forbidden from ever having children or working in an industry where they are exposed to children. Maybe we can breed it out of the gene pool that way. And if the sicko's that fantasize about it have any sense at all, they will agree that being in the presence of children presents a direct threat to the child. [/rant]

*********************

So....

I bet you want me to tell you how I really feel, right?

So you don't want the government to lock up someone who is guilty only of a thought crime, but you do want the government to monitor them for life, and actively prevent them from committing a crime in any way possible?
No that was deep that advocated that … I just said we should provide them with the therapy … I don’t know where I stand on forced therapy or monitoring yet. Mine was more of a “Give them the tools” sort of approach there

Well, flaiming people, pedo or not. Is against the law of NS.

Screw you.

That sounds fair.
It sounds a little silly to me, really...I'm not seeing a huge difference in the amount of power being given over a person's life, if that is indeed the issue...not wanting to give them that much control.

No that was deep that advocated that … I just said we should provide them with the therapy … I don’t know where I stand on forced therapy or monitoring yet. Mine was more of a “Give them the tools” sort of approach there
So you're at the same impasse I find myself:(

I've gotten an unofficial warning for going after pedophiles. Apparently, that sorta shit gets tolerated here. :mad:

All I've seen here so far is people debating against pedos, although many of them arent tough enough. Who's this person defending pedos or trying to justify it? Links?

Screw you.
Um.

Cool down periods are good.

I've gotten an unofficial warning for going after pedophiles. Apparently, that sorta shit gets tolerated here. :mad:
If you break the rules you deserve the punishment regardless of the target. The same way that someone that bates and someone that falls for it and flames them both get punished here.

Just like in real world … if you stabbed someone after you found out they beat their wife (and it was not in self defense) you deserve the punishment for stabbing someone as much as they deserve the punishment for beating their wife.

All I've seen here so far is people debating against pedos, although many of them arent tough enough. Who's this person defending pedos or trying to justify it? Links?
I didn't read that he was saying anyone was defending them...just that they shouldn't even be allowed to present their arguments, period.

So you're at the same impasse I find myself:(
Yeah probably pretty similar … I don’t like the government imposing on individuals life’s but I don’t like to see kids hurt in the future specially being on the receiving end of that.

Yes, and we should provide a substitute for serial killers as well. Maybe some mannequins that bleed and scream for mercy? All paid for by taxpayers, of course.

/sarcasm

Pedophiles are not people. Anyone that would go so far as to sexually abuse a child, in my opinion, would be getting off easy with a lifetime prison sentence. There's a reason that pedophiles have it so hard in prison - even the most hardened criminals know how despicable a human has to be to hurt a child like that.

As for pedophiles who have not committed any crimes, good for them, they've overcome their sick desires. But it should be their responsibility to seek therapy and a possible stay in a mental institution to keep society safe from their perversions. It's not a normal, law-abiding citizen's responsibilty to accomadate these scumbags.

Were it up to me, child sex offenders would be castrated on first offense, and gassed on the second.

No, they are not people.

Anyone who believes they are just harmless people with a perverted sense of sexuality should volunteer in the foster care or sexual crimes fields for a while. Once you've seen an infant's mouth ripped open and scarred for life as a result of "daddy's" loving attentions you will realize that these creatures are not human. Once they commit the crime they move from disgusting animals that fantasize about it, to something akin to a demon.

I wish I believed in hell. It might make me feel there is adequate punishment available for what they do.

IMO, Anyone posessing and looking at ANY form of child pornography (that includes the sick anime that passes as "harmless") should be forbidden from ever having children or working in an industry where they are exposed to children. Maybe we can breed it out of the gene pool that way. And if the sicko's that fantasize about it have any sense at all, they will agree that being in the presence of children presents a direct threat to the child. [/rant]

*********************

So....

I bet you want me to tell you how I really feel, right?

Again, the above is only true if pedophilia is only an impulse to harm children.

I didn't read that he was saying anyone was defending them...just that they shouldn't even be allowed to present their arguments, period.

That's what I said. Who's presenting those arguments, besides the OP?

Screw you.
Ok maybe you should take a cool down time, before more trouble comes around. Would hate to see anything happen to you

If you break the rules you deserve the punishment regardless of the target. The same way that someone that bates and someone that falls for it and flames them both get punished here.

Yes, but then you get to go into Moderation and accuse people of 'defending pedophiles' when they report people flaming. That drives me nuts...did you read the 'Stockholm syndrome' comment? And my reply to Crazy Girl, telling her that she was out of line in suggesting Jocabia supports pedophiles was deleted. How sweet.

All I've seen here so far is people debating against pedos, although many of them arent tough enough. Who's this person defending pedos or trying to justify it? Links?

Read the thread here.

Yes, but then you get to go into Moderation and accuse people of 'defending pedophiles' when they report people flaming. That drives me nuts...did you read the 'Stockholm syndrome' comment? And my reply to Crazy Girl, telling her that she was out of line in suggesting Jocabia supports pedophiles was deleted. How sweet.
Its specially sad when for the most part none of us are coming anywhere near “supporting” pedophiles we are all just questioning what should be done about them

Again, the above is only true if pedophilia is only an impulse to harm children.

Incorrect. Pedophiles that harm children don't see it as harm. They love the children. There is something wrong with them at their very core that needs to be removed from the human race.

Pedophiles don't have an impulse to harm. It's an impulse to "share love." You have no idea how many times I've heard that excuse in a court room.

That's what I said. Who's presenting those arguments, besides the OP?
You mean, who is advocating pedophilia? I was trying to compile a list...there was the Dark Shadowy Nexus, who may pop up again in puppet form, there is the Five Castes, there is [NS:::]Suvyamara...and I didn't read more of the OP's posts, but the OP doesn't seem to be supporting pedophilia...

Incorrect. Pedophiles that harm children don't see it as harm. They love the children. There is something wrong with them at their very core that needs to be removed from the human race.

Pedophiles don't have an impulse to harm. It's an impulse to "share love." You have no idea how many times I've heard that excuse in a court room.
Before you get much further into this, I would like to request that you not share ANY specific details about actual molestation.

But, if you want links...


Try this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11444869&postcount=412).

Or this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11447566&postcount=466).

And those are just two examples.

Before you get much further into this, I would like to request that you not share ANY specific details about actual molestation.


Agreed.

I should go anyway. This is far too "real" a subject to be treated so lightly and hypothetically, as if it were something that happened only on TV.

Thanks for the opportunity to air my rant.

Agreed.

I should go anyway. This is far too "real" a subject to be treated so lightly and hypothetically, as if it were something that happened only on TV.

Thanks for the opportunity to air my rant.
I spent two years getting molested … yet I can still manage to keep it hypothetical.

Its not easy no but if we keep it civil its not that big of a deal to discuss

Incorrect. Pedophiles that harm children don't see it as harm. They love the children. There is something wrong with them at their very core that needs to be removed from the human race.

Pedophiles don't have an impulse to harm. It's an impulse to "share love." You have no idea how many times I've heard that excuse in a court room.

Yes but, what if someone is only atracted to children. However has no impulse to ever do anything to them ever. (which i suspect a large majority).

I suggest that they seek mental health, but you should not force them to do anything. It could be possible that some pedos are just as likely to rape children as anyone who is just atracted to adults.

But, if you want links...


Try this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11444869&postcount=412).

Or this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11447566&postcount=466).

And those are just two examples.

Go here and report all the links you have:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494573

Go here and report all the links you have:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494573

It's called beating your head against a brick wall. It's not going to accomplish anything.

Why do you want it to accomplish something?
It's not like pedo threads get graphic at all.
That BDSM thread is way more graphic and it got off with a [Mature Themes] in the title.
You're not gonna get a pedo thread deleted until someone puts child porn in the OP.

Why do you want it to accomplish something?
It's not like pedo threads get graphic at all.
That BDSM thread is way more graphic and it got off with a [Mature Themes] in the title.
You're not gonna get a pedo thread deleted until someone puts child porn in the OP.

Run along, pedo.

And covering it up as minor age differences tangled up in age of consent laws...like we're really talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old. No, sorry, pedophiles like the sexually immature, that's the whole point...so let's be clear...this is about having sex with children, defined as between the ages of 'newborn' to 'still pre-pubescent'.


Actually, that's just what we're talking about. Your definition of child is incorrect. A child, in the courts, is defined as anyone below the age of consent. In today's lexicon 'pedophilia' is defined as a sexual attraction to minors. I personally have zero attraction to pre-pubescents, but I still carry the label. When Brittney Spears first came on the scene at 16 wearing a catholic schoolgirl uniform there were very few guys in this country who didn't stand up and take notice. In more ways than one. Yet by today's definition those were pedophilic thoughts.


I'm disgusted by the fact the pedophiles are permitted to hang out here, attempting to justify why they like to molest kids. Wouldn't surpise me if they're also using this forum as a way to meet potential prey.

Cluichstan, you're so fond of linking posts, I'd like you to point to the one where I attempted to justify why I like to molest kids. Or even one where I expressed such a desire. In fact, let's be honest here. You've obviously read my posts and know my position on adult/child relationships, yet you never seem to quote me when I've stated that I'm against them.

I've attempted repeatedly to show some of you folks in the last few days that the thoughts and feelings you seem to have about pedophiles are based on erroneous conjecture. I've offered myself as a resource to attempt to foster understanding, yet nobody asks me questions. It must be a joy for you to feel you've reached such a level of insight and understanding about the world that you have nothing left to learn. To be so sure of yourself that you feel you couldn't possibly wrong about any subject.

Run along, pedo.
Ok unless you are referencing something about the poster that is not apparent in the quoted post you are doing nothing but trolling really. The poster did nothing in that post to warrant the title “pedo” and more then you have. They just said that these threads are not “graphic” and wont get banned unless someone does something extreme (I don’t agree with this analysis myself but still)

Suvyamara'] I personally have zero attraction to pre-pubescents, but I still carry the label.


Then you're not a pedophile, you're an ephebophile.

Run along, pedo.
Ad hominem.
And a false ad hominem at that.

Suvyamara']Actually, that's just what we're talking about. Your definition of child is incorrect. A child, in the courts, is defined as anyone below the age of consent. In today's lexicon 'pedophilia' is defined as a sexual attraction to minors. I personally have zero attraction to pre-pubescents, but I still carry the label. When Brittney Spears first came on the scene at 16 wearing a catholic schoolgirl uniform there were very few guys in this country who didn't stand up and take notice. In more ways than one. Yet by today's definition those were pedophilic thoughts.

Continue trying to justify, you sick bastard.

Suvyamara']Cluichstan, you're so fond of linking posts, I'd like you to point to the one where I attempted to justify why I like to molest kids. Or even one where I expressed such a desire. In fact, let's be honest here. You've obviously read my posts and know my position on adult/child relationships, yet you never seem to quote me when I've stated that I'm against them.

You say you're against them, but at the same time, you blame society for not understanding such "relationships." You've preyed on children who don't know any better. End of story.

Suvyamara']I've attempted repeatedly to show some of you folks in the last few days that the thoughts and feelings you seem to have about pedophiles are based on erroneous conjecture.

No conjecture involved. You've admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old boy.

Suvyamara']I've offered myself as a resource to attempt to foster understanding, yet nobody asks me questions.

Questions? There are none to be asked. Understanding? Of someone who wants to fuck kids? No, sorry. No understanding here.

Suvyamara']It must be a joy for you to feel you've reached such a level of insight and understanding about the world that you have nothing left to learn.

I don't need to learn that fucking kids is wrong. I already know it is.

Suvyamara']To be so sure of yourself that you feel you couldn't possibly wrong about any subject.

I'll admit I can be wrong on nearly anything. Not this one, though.

Continue trying to justify, you sick bastard.



You say you're against them, but at the same time, you blame society for not understanding such "relationships." You've preyed on children who don't know any better. End of story.

He said he was against child molestation. Child molestation is not the same as paedophillia.


No conjecture involved. You've admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old boy.

A lot of 14-year-old guys know what it means to give consent. Namely, me.

Questions? There are none to be asked. Understanding? Of someone who wants to fuck kids? No, sorry. No understanding here.

I suppose that you couldn't try to understand, especially because you didn't try to understand what he said in his post.

I'll admit I can be wrong on nearly anything. Not this one, though.

Then you just proved his point that you think you're right about this.

A quote from the resident demon.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11447566&postcount=466

Asking a pedophile to turn off their sexuality will simply not work. Humans are sexual beings. Period. Expecting a pedophile repress his sexuality will do much more harm than good, just as if your sexual thoughts and feelings were somehow made illegal. The same goes for 'curing' us. Could you be 'cured' of your heterosexuality? No, and it's ridiculous to think we could be.

Precisely why they...you...should be removed from the gene pool of humanity.

You and your kind are a mutation that needs purged not just from society but from the human race. You should not be permitted to have children or to have any contact with them... ever. This would effectively prevent the mutation from passing to the next generation of victims turned predators. If you expect some kind of sympathy from me, I suppose I can say that whom ever encouraged you at 12 and another 12 year old to have sex together should be fried in an electric chair.

Children should not have sex, no matter how "loving" you pretend it is, you are harming that child. Children are not prepared emotionally to deal with the fallout involved in a sexual relationship and just because you say you love them does not make it true. Loving a child means protecting that child from emotional and physical pain. Child "Love" is a myth that you perpetuate and hope to gain tolerance of through pseudo-intellectual garbage.

I fully expect to get banned/warned or whatever because of this post. It is a personal attack because frankly, I find it difficult not to vomit thinking that you are not only loose in the world but campaigning for tolerance toward your kind.


Now, I'll go. I should never have come back to look at comments. This creature's audacity and self confidence will haunt me.

...If it is just a sexual attraction, we can't then lock up every pedophile when not every pedophile would ever want to harm a child.


the trouble is with so many pedophiles who insist that what they do to children doesn't harm them. I've even come across the argument that we're the ones harming children by stigmatizing pedophilia or by "making a big deal" (their words not mine) of it. it wasn't so long ago that somebody in another thread tried to argue that we shouldn't call it "child abuse" anymore. and even in this current thread, we've seen an example of the "shell-game" swap of meanings, replacing what most of us mean here, adults having sex with kids, with sex between two teens where one is just a few months short of the age of consent. as if pedophilia is nothing more than the unfortunate timing of a birthday on the part of one willing and competent participant.

when you're dealing with that kind of self-justifying, self-serving intellectual dishonesty, trying to measure the danger posed by any particular pedophile according to whether he or she "would ever want to harm a child" is a recipe for exposing children to sexual molestation.

Suvyamara']Actually, that's just what we're talking about. Your definition of child is incorrect.

No, it isn't. It simply isn't the one you are using.

Her definition of pedophilia, on the other hand, is spot-on. Pedophilia, by every accepted definition, refers to sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. In a discussion of pedophilia, this is thus what is being discussed.

If you would like to talk about attraction to young, but post-pubescent minors, that is a different subject.

A child, in the courts, is defined as anyone below the age of consent.

To be absolutely correct, a child (or minor) in the courts is anyone under 18. However, the courts (just like any rational person) afford increasing rights and responsibilities to people with increasing age and maturity.

In today's lexicon 'pedophilia' is defined as a sexual attraction to minors.

Only in slang. Just as a man who says, "Yeah, sure, I can see that Brad Pitt is attractive," might jokingly be labeled "gay", a person who is attracted to "jail-bait" might jokingly be called a pedo. But the definition of the term refers only to the pre-pubescent.

I personally have zero attraction to pre-pubescents,

Then you are not a pedophile.

I've attempted repeatedly to show some of you folks in the last few days that the thoughts and feelings you seem to have about pedophiles are based on erroneous conjecture. I've offered myself as a resource to attempt to foster understanding, yet nobody asks me questions.

That might have something to do with the fact that you are not a pedophile.

the trouble is with so many pedophiles who insist that what they do to children doesn't harm them. I've even come across the argument that we're the ones harming children by stigmatizing pedophilia or by "making a big deal" (their words not mine) of it. it wasn't so long ago that somebody in another thread tried to argue that we shouldn't call it "child abuse" anymore. and even in this current thread, we've seen an example of the "shell-game" swap of meanings, replacing what most of us mean here, adults having sex with kids, with sex between two teens where one is just a few months short of the age of consent. as if pedophilia is nothing more than the unfortunate timing of a birthday on the part of one willing and competent participant.

when you're dealing with that kind of self-justifying, self-serving intellectual dishonesty, trying to measure the danger posed by any particular pedophile according to whether he or she "would ever want to harm a child" is a recipe for exposing children to sexual molestation. Exactly...we see this on this very page...Suvyamara claiming that yes we ARE talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old, and going wholly by age of consent laws. Most of us are quite aware that age of consent laws alone do not define pedophilia. Teens having sex is QUITE different than an adult having sex with a teen, and different than an adult having sex with a pre-teen. Pretending that's it's all the same thing is nothing more than an attempt to shift direction.

Pedophiles' claims, such as those made over and over by the Dark Shadowy Nexus are so mind-boggling for the average person (re: non-pedophile), but it is exactly this kind of belief that children CAN consent, that children are NOT harmed by sex and that pedophiles are 'okay' that is only being helped by the links now possible because of technology. So these people have 'support groups' to tell each other how society is so unfair, and so against them for no reason. It becomes OUR fault that they are not welcome.

I've seen a lot of people on this forum spend a LOT of time debating these people, but the fact is, their minds are made up. I think they are hoping that children on this forum will start to see things their way, and say "you know, I want to have sex with a 35 year old, even though I'm 13, and I'm sure I'll be okay...this guy makes a convincing argument that I am a sexual being (hey, I masturbate, so he's got that right), and I'm sure these people would be gentle and I'd be okay...."

In some ways we are overprotective of our children, and in some ways we deny them certain rights, but frankly, I think that is another conversation alltogether, not one to be confused with adults wanting to be allowed to have sex with children.

Exactly...we see this on this very page...Suvyamara claiming that yes we ARE talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old, and going wholly by age of consent laws. Most of us are quite aware that age of consent laws alone do not define pedophilia. Teens having sex is QUITE different than an adult having sex with a teen, and different than an adult having sex with a pre-teen. Pretending that's it's all the same thing is nothing more than an attempt to shift direction.

Indeed. It seems to all be a method to try and distract from the actual issue under discussion. These discussions always seem to stray into age of consent laws and where that age should be placed. Why? Because people can then begin to debate over whether or not a 16 year old is ready for sex - a much more murky issue than whether or not a 6-year old is ready for it.

It is misdirection, pure and simple. It's like going into a thread about someone who embezzled money from his company, and screaming, "But isn't it ok to steal if you need money for food?" They try to push the discussion into a more ambiguous area.

Pedophiles' claims, such as those made over and over by the Dark Shadowy Nexus are so mind-boggling for the average person (re: non-pedophile), but it is exactly this kind of belief that children CAN consent, that children are NOT harmed by sex and that pedophiles are 'okay' that is only being helped by the links now possible because of technology.

I may not be exactly what you'd call a child, but I know what it means to consent. Just to say, it's technically our fault that they don't know what it means to consent, because we don't teach them that until they are older, even though they'll learn it anyways and might as well learn it sooner than later. Honestly, it would be more helpful that they learn about sex (and it's consequences) before puberty. I find it pitiful that society is so anal about sex.

No pun intended...

So these people have 'support groups' to tell each other how society is so unfair, and so against them for no reason. It becomes OUR fault that they are not welcome.

And in a way, it is our fault. Well, not technically mine since I am accepting of them, but it is society's fault.

I've seen a lot of people on this forum spend a LOT of time debating these people, but the fact is, their minds are made up.

And it's a pity that many people aren't willing to accept them without calling them sick child molesters and saying they should be all killed, though paedophiles are not the same thing as child molesters.

I think they are hoping that children on this forum will start to see things their way, and say "you know, I want to have sex with a 35 year old, even though I'm 13, and I'm sure I'll be okay...this guy makes a convincing argument that I am a sexual being (hey, I masturbate, so he's got that right), and I'm sure these people would be gentle and I'd be okay...."

I've already been willing to have sex with an adult, before this debate came up. Honestly, I'm accepting of paedophiles, as long as they don't molest or harm kids.

In some ways we are overprotective of our children, and in some ways we deny them certain rights, but frankly, I think that is another conversation alltogether, not one to be confused with adults wanting to be allowed to have sex with children.

I've already been willing to have sex with an adult, before this debate came up. Honestly, I'm accepting of paedophiles, as long as they don't molest or harm kids.
So basically, you aren't talking about pedophilia, you're talking about something (as described by Dem) murkier.

However, you also mention that you think we should 'teach children' what it means to consent. What evidence do you have that children are capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual activity, in particular sexual activity with adults? Because developmental research does not support the supposition that this sort of understanding is in fact possible. At what age it BECOMES possible, varies, but only within a certain amount of years.

So no, I am not going to talk to my four year old about what giving consent to sex with an adult means, because she is simply incapable at this developmental stage of grasping the concept. That you believe you are aware of the ramifications, and are conscious enough to give consent is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

So no, I am not going to talk to my four year old about what giving consent to sex with an adult means, because she is simply incapable at this developmental stage of grasping the concept. That you believe you are aware of the ramifications, and are conscious enough to give consent is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

If I caught another adult trying to talk my young child into giving consent I would just shoot first and ask questions later.

Okay, I'm going to give you pedophiles one post- list all of your points please and convince me why I should find your position acceptable to me as a Christian, an American, an Adult, a Future Parent, and someone who finds such acts and fantasies deplorable. One post to convince me why it should be acceptable- rather than having me go into a raving frenzy.

Then you're not a pedophile, you're an ephebophile

Do you think that matters at all to the torch wielding crowd out there? How many have even heard the term ephebophile? The public perception is that anyone with an attraction to minors (defined as anyone under 18, despite the fact that many areas, even in the US, have ages of consent below 18) is a pedophile. Further, there is no distinction made between pedophile and child molester. At best a pedophile is simply considered a child molester waiting to happen.

Continue trying to justify, you sick bastard.

Justify what?


You say you're against them, but at the same time, you blame society for not understanding such "relationships." You've preyed on children who don't know any better. End of story.

Again, where have you seen me blame society for anything? Also, I've never preyed on anyone. I admitted to sleeping with one minor. One. And in that instance, despite what you might believe, I was the one pursued.

Suvyamara
I've attempted repeatedly to show some of you folks in the last few days that the thoughts and feelings you seem to have about pedophiles are based on erroneous conjecture.

No conjecture involved. You've admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old boy.

Yes. And? That makes everything you've said about me true? One has nothing to do with the other. In case you haven't been following along it was that incident which brought me to my current belief that such relationships have too much potential for harm. If you can't manage an argument beyond the level of 'I know you are but what am I?' then perhaps you should consider keeping quiet and letting the grownups talk.


This would effectively prevent the mutation from passing to the next generation of victims turned predators. If you expect some kind of sympathy from me, I suppose I can say that whom ever encouraged you at 12 and another 12 year old to have sex together should be fried in an electric chair.

The thought that victims of child abuse turn into predatory child molesters is beyond silly, as has been shown in study after study. The math alone should be sufficient to give the lie to that. And what makes you think someone encouraged we two 12 year olds to have sex together? Two 12 year old boys? You think there was actually encouragment? Nothing could be further from the truth. We were flying in the face of everything we'd been taught.

Children should not have sex, no matter how "loving" you pretend it is, you are harming that child. Children are not prepared emotionally to deal with the fallout involved in a sexual relationship

Why not do a poll here asking people to state the age at which they began having sex and count the number of people who say that it was before 18. Then tell those people that they shouldn't have had sex because they were harmed by it.

While I don't advocate adult/child relationships it's not because there's anything wrong with sex. Kids have sex together every day. They have been doing so since the beginning of time. For you to pop up in the 21st century, after thousands of years of civilization, and say unequivocably that they were all wrong is ridiculous.

Okay, I'm going to give you pedophiles one post- list all of your points please and convince me why I should find your position acceptable to me as a Christian, an American, an Adult, a Future Parent, and someone who finds such acts and fantasies deplorable. One post to convince me why it should be acceptable- rather than having me go into a raving frenzy.

First tell me what it is I'm to attempt to convince you of with my argument. That having sex with kids is dandy? I don't believe that myself.

That I'm not a danger to children? I could certainly give it a shot.

That I have the right to be treated just like every other citizen in this country? That to subject me to sadism and cruelty because of a quirk of genetics is inherently wrong?

Ask your question and I'll do my best to answer it.

Suvyamara']Do you think that matters at all to the torch wielding crowd out there? How many have even heard the term ephebophile? The public perception is that anyone with an attraction to minors (defined as anyone under 18, despite the fact that many areas, even in the US, have ages of consent below 18) is a pedophile. Further, there is no distinction made between pedophile and child molester. At best a pedophile is simply considered a child molester waiting to happen.
You sure seem to want to hold onto the title of pedophile for yourself, despite the fact that you claim to not want to have sex with pre-pubescent children. Adults with 'teen' fantasies are quite common, and not at all viewed with the same kind of disgust as pedophiles, so forgive me if I doubt the argument you've given which is basically, "I am not, but since everyone says I am anyway, okay fine, I am". WE didn't create you.

MOST people do not think about age of consent laws the same as they do about adults having sex with children (defined not by age of consent here, but by pre-pubescence, thanks). So stop trying to make the issues one and the same. They are not.

Let me make that very clear, so you don't once again try to wiggle out of it:

1) Wanting to have sex with someone who is post-pubescent, but still under the age of majority is not pedophilia.

2) Wanting to have sex with someone who is pre-pubescent is pedophelia.

We're not talking about #1 in this thread, we're talking about #2. (ha, that's fitting considering your argument) So stick to the point.

Suvyamara']First tell me what it is I'm to attempt to convince you of with my argument. That having sex with kids is dandy? I don't believe that myself.

That I'm not a danger to children? I could certainly give it a shot.

That I have the right to be treated just like every other citizen in this country? That to subject me to sadism and cruelty because of a quirk of genetics is inherently wrong?

Ask your question and I'll do my best to answer it.

As for you (who have Hebephilia, not Pedophilia) how old are you before we classify you for having sex with a older teen.

Because it seems you aren't the one on trial- really. Though you certainly have issues with the underaged- that's not the issue, so I'm not even going to go there.

To any other pedo's (real ones) in this debate- I'd really Like to know what is so acceptable about your behavior and thoughts.

So basically, you aren't talking about pedophilia, you're talking about something (as described by Dem) murkier.

However, you also mention that you think we should 'teach children' what it means to consent. What evidence do you have that children are capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual activity, in particular sexual activity with adults? Because developmental research does not support the supposition that this sort of understanding is in fact possible. At what age it BECOMES possible, varies, but only within a certain amount of years.

Yeah, I definately should have been more clear of what I meant. I mean that you should teach them consent when they can understand it, but I believe that they can understand it, at least before they reach puberty.

So no, I am not going to talk to my four year old about what giving consent to sex with an adult means, because she is simply incapable at this developmental stage of grasping the concept. That you believe you are aware of the ramifications, and are conscious enough to give consent is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

Yeah, like I said ealier in this post. I meant that you should teach them when they can understand, like around the time they start 3rd or 4th grade, maybe. Clarity seems to not be my strongest suit.

You sure seem to want to hold onto the title of pedophile for yourself, despite the fact that you claim to not want to have sex with pre-pubescent children. Adults with 'teen' fantasies are quite common, and not at all viewed with the same kind of disgust as pedophiles, so forgive me if I doubt the argument you've given which is basically, "I am not, but since everyone says I am anyway, okay fine, I am". WE didn't create you.

MOST people do not think about age of consent laws the same as they do about adults having sex with children (defined not by age of consent here, but by pre-pubescence, thanks). So stop trying to make the issues one and the same. They are not.

Let me make that very clear, so you don't once again try to wiggle out of it:

1) Wanting to have sex with someone who is post-pubescent, but still under the age of majority is not pedophilia.

2) Wanting to have sex with someone who is pre-pubescent is pedophelia.

We're not talking about #1 in this thread, we're talking about #2. (ha, that's fitting considering your argument) So stick to the point.

What can I say? You're enlightened. I agree with you 100%. But trust me when I say that the label of pedophile is not one I claim for myself. In fact I prefer boylover, or MAA (minor attracted adult). However, that term is the one that is constantly thrust upon me by the government, the media, and even, surprisingly, the majority of the mental health field. Therefore, I find myself having to defend 'pedophilia' in order to defend myself. Try it yourself. Point out a particularly cute 13 or 14 year old to someone and mention how attractive he/she is. See if you don't get accused of being a pedophile.

Yeah, like I said ealier in this post. I meant that you should teach them when they can understand, like around the time they start 3rd or 4th grade, maybe. Clarity seems to not be my strongest suit.
Well, here's a chance to be even more clear...so are we teaching kids about sex, and about consent (which is already done, at least it was when I went to school, the more graphic parts left until higher grades), or are we teaching them that they can actually choose to have sex with adults or not?

Suvyamara'] Point out a particularly cute 13 or 14 year old to someone and mention how attractive he/she is. See if you don't get accused of being a pedophile.
Yeah, that's still pretty damn creepy. Especially if that child hasn't really hit puberty...I mean, mistaking them for older because they are physically developed is one thing. Being specifically attracted to that age is another. What makes them suddenly unattractive once they get a year or two older? I don't actually want an answer to that.

As for you (who have Hebephilia, not Pedophilia) how old are you before we classify you for having sex with a older teen.

Not sure I understand you. Do you want to know my current age? Also keep in mind please that I don't have sex with teens. Yes, I did have a relationship with one teen but that was over 10 years ago.

What makes them suddenly unattractive once they get a year or two older? I don't actually want an answer to that.

Then I won't answer.

Suvyamara']Not sure I understand you. Do you want to know my current age? Also keep in mind please that I don't have sex with teens. Yes, I did have a relationship with one teen but that was over 10 years ago.

Let me guess, you were in your early twenties/late teens at the time, but legally you had an unlawful relation, hence you had to register as a sex offender or something like that, even though you are really, for all intents and purposes, not a threat to society. Right?

(I'm a paralegal, and have seen case like that).

Well, here's a chance to be even more clear...so are we teaching kids about sex, and about consent (which is already done, at least it was when I went to school, the more graphic parts left until higher grades), or are we teaching them that they can actually choose to have sex with adults or not?

I wasn't taught about sex or consent until 6th grade, if I remember right. To me, that seems to be waiting too long. I suppose we're kinda teaching them both things, that they can choose to have sex with adults or not.

Let me guess, you were in your early twenties/late teens at the time, but legally you had an unlawful relation, hence you had to register as a sex offender or something like that, even though you are really, for all intents and purposes, not a threat to society. Right?

(I'm a paralegal, and have seen case like that).

Nope. In fact I was in my late 20s at the time. I considered myself hetero and had dated women for years. Of course I always knew I was attracted to younger guys but never did anything about it (not since I was a teen myself). In fact it never even occured to me to do so. Then I met this boy. We became friends. Over a period of months we became close friends. After a couple months he began flirting with me. It grew more intense as time went on. During this time I came to realize that women, who had always left me vaguely unsatisfied, were not where my primary sexual attraction was focused. Finally after about a year of struggling with the issues of 'right and wrong' in this instance, I 'succumbed' to his wishes and our relationship became physical. Many of you will likely be pleased to hear that I later went to prison over it. That was over 10 years ago.

And you do not see the uh, problem with doing what you wish to do with children, or what any of you people may have done?

Suvyamara']Nope. In fact I was in my late 20s at the time. I considered myself hetero and had dated women for years. Of course I always knew I was attracted to younger guys but never did anything about it (not since I was a teen myself). In fact it never even occured to me to do so. Then I met this boy. We became friends. Over a period of months we became close friends. After a couple months he began flirting with me. It grew more intense as time went on. During this time I came to realize that women, who had always left me vaguely unsatisfied, were not where my primary sexual attraction was focused. Finally after about a year of struggling with the issues of 'right and wrong' in this instance, I 'succumbed' to his wishes and our relationship became physical. Many of you will likely be pleased to hear that I later went to prison over it. That was over 10 years ago.

Hmm... I wonder if there's such thing as a boy who's attracted to mature men... How long did your relationship last for?

And you do not see the uh, problem with doing what you wish to do with children, or what any of you people may have done?

Of course I see the problem. That's why I don't advocate such relationships. Of course, I'm betting that the problems I see aren't the problems you're seeing.

Suvyamara']Of course I see the problem. That's why I don't advocate such relationships. Of course, I'm betting that the problems I see aren't the problems you're seeing.
My problems are you're taking advantage of the stupidity of young people; yours might just be that you broke a law that you don't think is fair if I am guessing correctly.

Hmm... I wonder if there's such thing as a boy who's attracted to mature men... How long did your relationship last for?

Of course there are. Poll gay men if you like. Ask them how many of them did or would have wanted an older partner when they were teens.

And do you mean how long did our relationship last, or how long did it last after it became physical? Although that's not really clear, as the relationship became gradually more physical over time. But by 'physical' I mean after the point where the acts we were committing were sufficient to bring a charge against me.

Suvyamara']And do you mean how long did our relationship last, or how long did it last after it became physical? Although that's not really clear, as the relationship became gradually more physical over time. But by 'physical' I mean after the point where the acts we were committing were sufficient to bring a charge against me.

Once it became physical, I mean.

My problems are you're taking advantage of the stupidity of young people; yours might just be that you broke a law that you don't think is fair if I am guessing correctly.

Where was the point where I took advantage of someone's stupidity? Is that what you got out my little story there?

Suvyamara']Where was the point where I took advantage of someone's stupidity? Is that what you got out my little story there?


The point you did it with an underaged person, who are - especially in this day and age - stupid. Or at least lacking the rational thought processes required to make rational decisions.

Once it became physical, I mean.

Not long. I was already having financial problems with my business. I just couldn't deal with it all I suppose. On the one hand, I was the happiest I'd ever been. On the other hand, years of media hype were telling me how much damage I was doing to the person I loved. This despite all evidence to the contrary. His parents loved me, telling me how much happier he was, how much better he was doing in school and making new friends, etc.

Almost immediately after we took that step I began plans to sell off my business, not even really realizing the motivation behind it. Soon thereafter I moved away. It was heartbreaking, for both of us, but I told myself I was doing what was best for him. We kept in touch, and it was through that that his parents became suspicious. It's the thought of what he had to go through afterwards, the ridicule and abuse a small town would heap on him, that convinced me that such relationships had too much potential for harm.

The point you did it with an underaged person, who are - especially in this day and age - stupid. Or at least lacking the rational thought processes required to make rational decisions.

You know, I'm betting there are an awful lot 'underage' people out there who would strongly disagree with that assessment.

His parents loved me, telling me how much happier he was, how much better he was doing in school and making new friends, etc.
Yeah, I bet they hate your guts now though.

The point you did it with an underaged person, who are - especially in this day and age - stupid. Or at least lacking the rational thought processes required to make rational decisions.

I do find your ignorance rather insulting. Teenagers are much smarter and more rational than you think. If you want stupid, look at the Middle ages.

Yeah, I bet they hate your guts now though.

I bet you're right.

Suvyamara']You know, I'm betting there are an awful lot 'underage' people out there who would strongly disagree with that assessment.
Yeah, and that lot is generally about as intelligent and capable of coherent thought and rational decision making as a stone door. So I find your rebuttal more than lacking.

This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilism. Many paedophiles will make the case that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point. Obviously, we have scientific knowledge that specifically states that children cannot truly concieve of what giving consent means. Their brains have not fully developed to the point to where they can understand that at all.

But, on that same token, we can't just write off paedophiles completely. As stated in the title, they are people as well. So, rather than blindingly crucifying and castrating them all, as some people might suggest, we need to develop some form of solution, to allow paedophiles to operate in society without putting our children in harm AND without removing rights from the paedophiles.

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children. The only form of pornography I can think of that does not involve actual, live children would be lolicon: drawn, Japanese-anime style art that involves children, but is not modeled on actual occurances, but purely from the artist's imagination. Quite frankly, this art disgusts me, but it's the only kind I can think of that wouldn't hurt children and yet provide something to the paedophile.

Another possibility would be some form of virtual reality technology that the paedophile could delve into, to indulge themselves in sexual acts with virtual children rather than real children. Again, this would lessen the sexual drive, though it would depend on how far virtual reality technology has evolved thus far, and how expensive it would be.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?

I agree.

/AH/ for the win!

Yeah, and that lot is generally about as intelligent and capable of coherent thought and rational decision making as a stone door. So I find your rebuttal more than lacking.

I'm staying away from that one. You can have that argument with the kids.

So once again, the conversation has been completely shifted to age of consent, and not pedophilia.

So once again, the conversation has been completely shifted to age of consent, and not pedophilia.


I didn't say anything about age of consent, I said taking advantage of the stupid and irrational is wrong, which is what pedophilia entails: having a physical relationship with an age group that is by and large, completely moronic.

So once again, the conversation has been completely shifted to age of consent, and not pedophilia.

Hey, don't look at me. I didn't do it.

I didn't say anything about age of consent, I said taking advantage of the stupid and irrational is wrong, which is what pedophilia entails: having a physical relationship with an age group that is by and large, completely moronic.
No, that isn't what it entails, else we'd be talking about sex with the mentally handicapped.

Pedophelia is sex with pre-pubescent children.

Teens who have hit puberty are another problem altogether.

Lumping everyone under the age of consent as 'stupid and irrational' and 'completely moronic' does nothing at all to further the conversation, and in fact only helps to derail it even more.

No, that isn't what it entails, else we'd be talking about sex with the mentally handicapped.

It entails that having sex with children and teenagers is wrong, as that was the context of my argument and this entire thread: sex with children. Pardon me if I don't want to make a paragraph or three explicitly stating the obvious of what I am talking about.

Pedophelia is sex with pre-pubescent children.

Yes, sex with children, the stupid I partily was refering to.

Teens who have hit puberty are another problem altogether.

Yes, they are another problem; they're just as irrational as children who haven't hit puberty, but now they have sexual urges. Which increases the likeliness of them doing something utterly retarded in their lives.

Lumping everyone under the age of consent as 'stupid and irrational' and 'completely moronic' does nothing at all to further the conversation, and in fact only helps to derail it even more.
Well gee, I guess since children/teenagers are stupid, irrational, and every damn synonym for those words, and is thus wrong to take advantage of their bodies due to 'clouded judgement' is a real derailer.

Well gee, I guess since children/teenagers are stupid, irrational, and every damn synonym for those words, and is thus wrong to take advantage of their bodies due to 'clouded judgement' is a real derailer.
I'm so happy for you that you stopped being a stupid, irrational moron with clouded judgement the second you reached the age of majority.

Seriously, you really don't seem to have a point, other than to insult kids.

I'm so happy for you that you stopped being a stupid, irrational moron with clouded judgement the second you reached the age of majority.

Seriously, you really don't seem to have a point, other than to insult kids.
I have yet to stop being stupid, irrational, immature and all words that are descriptive for someone of my age. That does not, however, mean I am not aware of my own short comming and those of my age group which are damned well near universal. And I have explained my point in this thread many times, only to have it ignored by those who feel victimized that society doesn't want them to have sex with children.

108 pages, you'll understand that I'm not going to go seek out your posts.

If your only reason is that 'kids are stupid', you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

There are much better reasons to forbid adult-child sex.

I have yet to stop being stupid, irrational, immature and all words that are descriptive for someone of my age. That does not, however, mean I am not aware of my own short comming and those of my age group which are damned well near universal. And I have explained my point in this thread many times, only to have it ignored by those who feel victimized that society doesn't want them to have sex with children.

Well, I'll agree with you on one point at least. You are successfully making the argument that you're a moron.

108 pages, you'll understand that I'm not going to go seek out your posts.

If your only reason is that 'kids are stupid', you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

There are much better reasons to forbid adult-child sex.
Uh, no. That is pretty much the crux of it: children are immature and stupid when it comes to rational decision making in the real world, so laws are put into place and moral codes are created to protect them for the sake of society and culture. Not also forgetting that children who have yet to reach puberty aren't made for sex and at no point wanting it entailing emotional and mental damage as well as physical.

But since you are so unfathomably intelligent and more well versed in the subject of 'no boning the kiddies!' than me, why not explain some of the better reasons?

Suvyamara']Well, I'll agree with you on one point at least. You are successfully making the argument that you're a moron.
Oh yes, great argument. A masterfully made point that I cannot possibly ever rebutt because by God, an insult out of left field IS THE ULTIMATE ARGUMENT WINNER!

Good job there.

Oh yes, great argument. A masterfully made point that I cannot possibly ever rebutt because by God, an insult out of left field IS THE ULTIMATE ARGUMENT WINNER!

Good job there.

It's hardly an insult out of left field. You are the one that argued that kids are morons. You then, when pressed to tell when it was you magically ceased being a moron, stated that you persist in your moronic thoughts and behaviors. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but they are your words.

Oh yes, great argument. A masterfully made point that I cannot possibly ever rebutt because by God, an insult out of left field IS THE ULTIMATE ARGUMENT WINNER!

Good job there.

It does makes the reader laugh though. Unless, of course, the reader is you. Plus, it's not his fault you called yourself an idiot with your argument.

Suvyamara']It's hardly an insult out of left field. You are the one that argued that kids are morons. You then, when pressed to tell when it was you magically ceased being a moron, stated that you persist in your moronic thoughts and behaviors. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but they are your words.
No, what you did was take something I said which was and still is perfectly valid, and used it as an insult. "u r a moron!" I admitted as such, and bringing it up in a single line reply serves no purpose but to insult me and detract from the fact, that you and all your buddies are a constant danger to children and society.

No, what you did was take something I said which was and still is perfectly valid, and used it as an insult. "u r a moron!" I admitted as such, and bringing it up in a single line reply serves no purpose but to insult me and detract from the fact, that you and all your buddies are a constant danger to children and society.

I'm a constant danger to children and society? Now who's insulting whom?

Also, what you said was not perfectly valid. It was insulting, narrow-minded, and completely without any basis in fact. Just as with adults, there are children who are more intelligent, mature, and capable of rational thought than others. To use such a blanket condemnation is simplistic at best.

No, what you did was take something I said which was and still is perfectly valid, and used it as an insult. "u r a moron!" I admitted as such, and bringing it up in a single line reply serves no purpose but to insult me and detract from the fact, that you and all your buddies are a constant danger to children and society.

I would like you to show evidence of your claims that all teenagers are irrational.

Suvyamara']Well, I'll agree with you on one point at least. You are successfully making the argument that you're a moron.
Buuuuuuuurn!



Someone had to say it

Keeping them in prison to be raped by their fellow inmates is a punishment more fitting the crime.

Haha, now we are also taking care of the gay problems :P lock up gays and paedophiles together with whatever the hell lolicon is and boom! we've taken care of them both :P.

Haha, now we are also taking care of the gay problems :P lock up gays and paedophiles together with whatever the hell lolicon is and boom! we've taken care of them both :P.
... Yes, putting gays and paedophiles in the same boat. Because both amounts to the same thing. Right. Nothing that hasn't been done before.


Please, please explain to me how you fail to grasp the inherent difference between what happens between two consenting adults behind their bedroom doors, and what happens when an adult uses his position of authority or greater physical strenght to abuse of a child.

Suvyamara']Then I won't answer.

That's the predatory aspect of what you are. You use children, or minors if you like, for sexual gratification until they reach a certain age. Being attracted to a minor is one thing. Being attracted to someone because they are a minor is another, and inherently predatory.

If a child is dropped from a sexual relationship upon hitting 18, what do you think that does to them psychologically? They turn 18, and suddenly they become unnattractive to this adult whom they've shared a bond of trust and love with.

Call yourself a pedophile, hebephile, or whatever you like. Your sexual fantasy is predatory, and that makes you a terrible human being.

I would like you to show evidence of your claims that all teenagers are irrational.
Are you serious? Do you really want me to go out and find a study on the patently obvious? Guess what, there are none most likely. It is a fact just like the sunrise: kids are stupid, kids do stupid things, kids have always and will always fit that simple model up till the point they get out from under their parents wing and are forced to deal with the world on their own. This is why society and morals are built around protecting kids, because kids don't know what is good for them, and kids don't know how to make rational decisions; generally speaking of course as I will not paint such a broad stroke with THAT wide a brush; but still the fact remains: kids are dumb as fuck and always will be.

That's the predatory aspect of what you are. You use children, or minors if you like, for sexual gratification until they reach a certain age. Being attracted to a minor is one thing. Being attracted to someone because they are a minor is another, and inherently predatory.

If a child is dropped from a sexual relationship upon hitting 18, what do you think that does to them psychologically? They turn 18, and suddenly they become unnattractive to this adult whom they've shared a bond of trust and love with.

Call yourself a pedophile, hebephile, or whatever you like. Your sexual fantasy is predatory, and that makes you a terrible human being.

Where from anything I've written do you get the notion that I use children for sexual gratification until they reach a certain age?

Where do you get the idea that I'd drop someone when they turned 18? I've never said anything of the sort.

Finally, explain to me how a fantasy can be predatory.

Are you serious? Do you really want me to go out and find a study on the patently obvious? Guess what, there are none most likely. It is a fact just like the sunrise: kids are stupid, kids do stupid things, kids have always and will always fit that simple model up till the point they get out from under their parents wing and are forced to deal with the world on their own. This is why society and morals are built around protecting kids, because kids don't know what is good for them, and kids don't know how to make rational decisions; generally speaking of course as I will not paint such a broad stroke with THAT wide a brush; but still the fact remains: kids are dumb as fuck and always will be.

So you have no proof behind your accusations?

Suvyamara']Where from anything I've written do you get the notion that I use children for sexual gratification until they reach a certain age?

Where do you get the idea that I'd drop someone when they turned 18? I've never said anything of the sort.

Finally, explain to me how a fantasy can be predatory.

You define yourself as a 'hebephile', correct? Someone attracted to minors. Minors don't stay minors forever. The same is true with a pedophile. Children don't stay children forever. By definition, once that 14 year old boy hit 18, you'd lose interest.

If this isn't the case, and you were attracted to a minor for reasons other than the fact that he was a minor, it's different. It's still a bit gross, but not nearly as bad.

When your fantasy revolves around using someone until you've lost interest, it's predatory.

So you have no proof behind your accusations?

I think I read somewhere in a previous post that you were 14.

There's really no explaining this to you. When I was 14, I felt the same way - so much more mature and intelligent than the other 14 year olds. It took me longer to actually grow up.

You'll learn. Until then, just know that you have alot of growing up to do. All 14 year olds do.

Pedophiles should be locked up in prison and stay there.

Pedophiles should be locked up in prison and stay there.

If this was a 109 pages earlier then your comment may have meant something, but it's not.

You define yourself as a 'hebephile', correct? Someone attracted to minors. Minors don't stay minors forever. The same is true with a pedophile. Children don't stay children forever. By definition, once that 14 year old boy hit 18, you'd lose interest.

If this isn't the case, and you were attracted to a minor for reasons other than the fact that he was a minor, it's different. It's still a bit gross, but not nearly as bad.

When your fantasy revolves around using someone until you've lost interest, it's predatory.

Never having had the opportunity to have a relationship that progressed to that point I couldn't say what would have happened. Of course I'm a romantic at heart so I can only hope that love, as they say, would conquor all.

As for the fantasies... do you honestly think I have fantasies about having someone grow old until I lose interest in them? Or of 'using' someone?

Pedophiles should be locked up in prison and stay there.

On what charge?

Pedophiles should be locked up in prison and stay there.
We really ought to make knowing the difference between pedophile and child molester a prerequisite to posting on these topics.
Don't know how we'd do that, but still.

I think I read somewhere in a previous post that you were 14.

There's really no explaining this to you. When I was 14, I felt the same way - so much more mature and intelligent than the other 14 year olds. It took me longer to actually grow up.

You'll learn. Until then, just know that you have alot of growing up to do. All 14 year olds do.

But I do know enough to know what it means to give consent and what the consequences could be.

If this was a 109 pages earlier then your comment may have meant something, but it's not.

A comment nonetheless though.

But I do know enough to know what it means to give consent and what the consequences could be.

Yes but most 14 year old don't, and there is no chance it is ever justified to risk allowing this even if the chance was 50/50. You cannot use age of consent laws to justify pedophilia.

Well that was odd. For several pages the thread was taken over by people who seem to--once again--be ignoring any and all points made.

Here's the deal:

Paedophilia is merely the attraction to children.

As proven through various studies linked throughout this thread, paedophiles are more prevalent than one might think. Furthermore, paedophiles form only 10% of child molesters. Most child molesters merely go after children as they are the easiest target.

Most paedophiles recognize their attraction is wrong. Thing is, they cannot get the help they need because society is so eager to condemn them. Why? Simple. One that tries to seek help has only one option: avoidance therapy. This "therapy," which was also applied to homosexuality back when it was considered a disease, does nothing but literally torture the person. Furthermore, once their medical records are looked at by anyone, they will lose any and all chances for further jobs, home purchasing, or anything else conducive to actually living a productive life. In short, currently, seeking help will just result in destroying their lives. That is a simple and pure fact.

I'm not advocating that we allow paedophiles to have sex with children, nor would most paedophiles either. What I'm advocating is opening up to them as a society so they can get the help they need, much like with any other mental illness. I want, one day, for it to be considered just as we consider someone with bipolar disorder or multiple schlorosis: "Eh, whatever." Most paedophiles are otherwise intelligent people who could add much to society. You never know when the paedophile you would be so eager to jail or execute for crimes they have not commited might be the next Einstein, or Hawking.

I'm a paedophile too. I have never and will never touch a child. I refuse to even truly consider it, for I know it is wrong. I want help. I can't get it. That's why I originally made this thread, to try to open people's minds to it and whatnot. Thus far, it seems I've had only a little effect at best. A shame, really. But then, this is probably the most touchiest subject, isn't it?

This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilism. Many paedophiles will make the case that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point. Obviously, we have scientific knowledge that specifically states that children cannot truly concieve of what giving consent means. Their brains have not fully developed to the point to where they can understand that at all.

But, on that same token, we can't just write off paedophiles completely. As stated in the title, they are people as well. So, rather than blindingly crucifying and castrating them all, as some people might suggest, we need to develop some form of solution, to allow paedophiles to operate in society without putting our children in harm AND without removing rights from the paedophiles.

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children. The only form of pornography I can think of that does not involve actual, live children would be lolicon: drawn, Japanese-anime style art that involves children, but is not modeled on actual occurances, but purely from the artist's imagination. Quite frankly, this art disgusts me, but it's the only kind I can think of that wouldn't hurt children and yet provide something to the paedophile.

Another possibility would be some form of virtual reality technology that the paedophile could delve into, to indulge themselves in sexual acts with virtual children rather than real children. Again, this would lessen the sexual drive, though it would depend on how far virtual reality technology has evolved thus far, and how expensive it would be.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?
I wonder, would you be willing to have a BBQ with these people? Was not Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all genetically human? Wasn't Charlie Manson a person. Did they have rights?

The answer is no. Even in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, felons no longer have rights when convicted. Once you take someone's life just for the hell of it or violate their person you are no longer human. You are now an animal.

Now, rape and molestation, IMHO should be a capital offense. Simple as that. Shoot them out back of the woodshed and make the other prisoners bury them.

And how do you know a liberal's dead--his heart stops bleeding.

I wonder, would you be willing to have a BBQ with these people? Was not Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all genetically human? Wasn't Charlie Manson a person. Did they have rights?

The answer is no. Even in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, felons no longer have rights when convicted. Once you take someone's life just for the hell of it or violate their person you are no longer human. You are now an animal.

Now, rape and molestation, IMHO should be a capital offense. Simple as that. Shoot them out back of the woodshed and make the other prisoners bury them.

And how do you know a liberal's dead--his heart stops bleeding.
I'm sorry, did you read anything in the thread? A paedophile is not a child molester. A paedophile does not automatically become a child molester by virtue of being a paedophile. All paedophilia is is attraction to children. Most paedophiles are not molesters; in fact, about 10% of all child molesters are paedophiles. The other 90% are opportunists. Source is the study linked throughout this thread. Please read the entire thing before replying next time. Or at least more than teh first post.

I wonder, would you be willing to have a BBQ with these people? Was not Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all genetically human? Wasn't Charlie Manson a person. Did they have rights?

The answer is no. Even in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, felons no longer have rights when convicted. Once you take someone's life just for the hell of it or violate their person you are no longer human. You are now an animal.


That's too bad. I make a mean steak, and people rave about my devilled eggs.

Also, speaking as a felon, read a book or something before opening your mouth. Will save you embarrassment in the future.

... A paedophile is not a child molester. A paedophile does not automatically become a child molester by virtue of being a paedophile. All paedophilia is is attraction to children. Most paedophiles are not molesters; in fact, about 10% of all child molesters are paedophiles. The other 90% are opportunists. ...

I'd be more interested in a statistic about the percentage of pedophiles that are child molesters, than one about the percentage of molesters that are pedophiles. or did I miss it in all the pages and pages here?

anyhow, this is where your priorities seem different from the non-pedo society's. no wonder you don't seem to understand why we're getting all worked up about pedophiles. let's see if I can make part of it simpler.

let's take a case of hypothetical child "A" being molested by hypothetical kiddie-fiddler "Z". to avoid the crap that keeps getting posted about minority, consent, harmless fun or whatever, "A" is 9 years old, and "Z" is 30 or 35. by some combination of grooming, wheedling, or whatever, "Z" has "A" committing various sex acts on him/her, and "Z" commits some acts of penetrative sex.

you apparently care whether "Z" molested "A" because he/she is a pedophile, or because the opportunity just presented itself to someone who might just as easily have raped your grandparent if that had come up first. now me, I don't care. I don't care if "Z" is a pedophile, a power-freak, a politician on holiday in SE Asia who was missing having somebody helpless to screw, or some other kind of perv. ALL I care about is that the kid was molested. as for why "Z" did it, I don't care.

I ... don't ... care. I want the b*****d locked up where he or she will never get out. preferably before any kid is molested but for sure before there's a 2nd or 3rd or 4th victim. the label for the molester's motive is a luxury I'll live without to keep him or her off the streets.

from that, I can also say I don't care whether somebody assures me "I'm the kind of pedophile who only likes to think about screwing your kid's brains out. I'd never really do it" or not. and of course the predatory kind of pedophile will always tell us, just to make it easier for us, right? they'd never lie to us would they? I can't be bothered trying to decide which pedo is being honest and which one is lying when they say, "but I only love children, I'd never have sex with them!" I don't mean to be rude to anybody here, but we've had that kind of assurance made here by somebody. am I seriously supposed to believe it? that's a pretty tall order, even on the "anonymous" internet.

and that's where I see a difference between your approach and mine - and maybe a lot of other people see it too.

I just like violent movies and video games, but I'd never hurt anybody.

Explain to me the difference.

If it is 'just a sexual attraction' then the requirement is that a pedophile must forever abstain from acting on those sexual desires. If this is a requirement, should it not also be a forced requirement? I'm not sure...(I'm thinking chemical castration here...however that plays out for both men and women)

Sin, come on. Do you realize that the vast majority of clinical pedophiles have other attractions that are not to non-consenting victims, will not ever molest and believe acting on their attractions would permanently damage the child? For those that molest, castration doesn't have any evidence of working. For those that don't, you're chemically destroying someone who will never commit a crime.

Do we really want to go down the road of punsihing people who we've decided will commit a crime before they do however unlikely? That path? Really? What happens when they start claiming that black people are more likely to commit crimes or poor people or whatever? Granted, pedophiles have a mental illness which is not comparable to black or poor people, but let's be real, when punishing people not innocent of a crime becomes acceptable, where does that end?

I'd be more interested in a statistic about the percentage of pedophiles that are child molesters, than one about the percentage of molesters that are pedophiles. or did I miss it in all the pages and pages here?

anyhow, this is where your priorities seem different from the non-pedo society's. no wonder you don't seem to understand why we're getting all worked up about pedophiles. let's see if I can make part of it simpler.

let's take a case of hypothetical child "A" being molested by hypothetical kiddie-fiddler "Z". to avoid the crap that keeps getting posted about minority, consent, harmless fun or whatever, "A" is 9 years old, and "Z" is 30 or 35. by some combination of grooming, wheedling, or whatever, "Z" has "A" committing various sex acts on him/her, and "Z" commits some acts of penetrative sex.

you apparently care whether "Z" molested "A" because he/she is a pedophile, or because the opportunity just presented itself to someone who might just as easily have raped your grandparent if that had come up first. now me, I don't care. I don't care if "Z" is a pedophile, a power-freak, a politician on holiday in SE Asia who was missing having somebody helpless to screw, or some other kind of perv. ALL I care about is that the kid was molested. as for why "Z" did it, I don't care.

I ... don't ... care. I want the b*****d locked up where he or she will never get out. preferably before any kid is molested but for sure before there's a 2nd or 3rd or 4th victim. the label for the molester's motive is a luxury I'll live without to keep him or her off the streets.

from that, I can also say I don't care whether somebody assures me "I'm the kind of pedophile who only likes to think about screwing your kid's brains out. I'd never really do it" or not. and of course the predatory kind of pedophile will always tell us, just to make it easier for us, right? they'd never lie to us would they? I can't be bothered trying to decide which pedo is being honest and which one is lying when they say, "but I only love children, I'd never have sex with them!" I don't mean to be rude to anybody here, but we've had that kind of assurance made here by somebody. am I seriously supposed to believe it? that's a pretty tall order, even on the "anonymous" internet.

and that's where I see a difference between your approach and mine - and maybe a lot of other people see it too.

Here's the point. Call them what you want - pedophiles are not equal to child molesters. Child molesters are criminals. Pedophiles are only criminals if they are child molesters.

Now here's the trick. If you took 10,000 people. All people. Randomly selected. Or you took 10,000 pedophiles. Only pedophiles. If you looked, you'd actually find more child molesters in the randomly selected group than the group of only pedophiles. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it's true.

Don't get me wrong, pedophilia is proven to be an aggrivating factor, but not as badly as rape fantasies by a far cry which are the primary problem.

If we locked up all pedophiles we would reduce pedophilia by about 10% but reduce the overall population of men by about 20%, most of whom would be innocent of any crime against children and always would be.

Do you care about punishing the innocent? I do.

Perhaps you also need to factor in how difficult it would be to live a lifetime of abstinence. Because frankly, I think that is what we absolutely must require of pedophiles. That is, if you believe that an adult having sex with a child is harmful, period, regardless of the circumstances, which I do. And I'm not talking about age of consent laws here....I'm talking about little children, pre-pubescent children. So, if we require that they always abstain, then why not also require that they take steps to ENSURE abstinence?

Again, you're assuming that pedophiles are only attracted to children. Most aren't and it is not a requirement or a generally present part of pedophila.

I just don't know. Nor does this address the problem of child molestation that is committed by people who are NOT pedophiles. I just wish there was some way we could ENSURE the safety of our children without being so afraid of everyone harming them that we end up making our children into prisoners.

Finally, the Sin I know. Yes, this is exactly how I feel. As you know I was a victim. The scary thing to me, the reason I want the punishment when the crime actually occurs to be so harsh, is that the existence of this crime has made people afraid to interact with children in healthy ways. Teachers pulling away from children rather than hugging them when they're upset, fathers afraid to let their daughters sit on their lap, mothers afraid of being to affectionate (which these days means affectionate at all) with their sons. The world for children is becoming a cold one because we are all afraid of being mistaken for these sick individuals.

Now, here's the rub. By overreacting to those with the attraction but no interest in committing the crime, we are simply making the hysteria worse and further victimizing our children. One, we chase the pedophiles deeper into the dark corners rather than encouraging them to seek help. Two, we make people more afraid of being seen as anything to could possibly be mistake for a pedophile and as such our children are physically isolated from healthy non-sexual affection. We exasperate the situation with overreaction when we really want to start addressing the problem

I was so glad to read this post, because it is the first of your posts in these pages that appears to be making the focus on fixing the problem rather than sating your frustration with the problem.

While I don't believe you should be stripped of your rights if identified as a non-active pedophile, I believe that they should be monitored, and forced to accept psychiatric treatment against their will.

So if I monitored you and forced you to accept psychiatric treatment against your will for your desires, let's say for example, desires to murder people, would that be stripping your rights?

I would argue that forcing people into psychiatric treatment or monitoring them 'against their will' is stripping them of their rights? But don't let reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Sin, come on.
Oh go berate someone else, or at least read my following posts. I was following a thought to its logicial conclusion, not fucking advocating it.

Edit: good, you see.

The scary thing to me, the reason I want the punishment when the crime actually occurs to be so harsh, is that the existence of this crime has made people afraid to interact with children in healthy ways.

Jocabia, I appreciate the sanity of your posts. I just wanted to address the sentence above. I think, if you'll give it some thought, that you would have to agree that it's not the existance of such crimes that has caused the problem with people afraid to interact with kids, but rather the media's portrayal of such crimes.

I've stated in other posts the details of my crime. I had a consenting (I know, I know, he was unable to consent, let's table that for another day) relationship with a 14 year old. We felt we were in love with each other. The night I was arrested I saw a news story about me on the television. In this report they stated that I was wanted for the violent rape of a young boy. They said that police from several states had been hunting for me for some time. That I had molested a string of kids in several states over a period of years. There was not a single ounce of truth to any of this. The next day further stories were released. Neighbors (I had been staying with my brother, as I'd just moved from out of state and didn't have a place or a job yet) were interviewed, they described me as a violent person who had often been seen talking to local children. In fact I had talked to no one there in the month I'd lived there. One of them even stated that he'd seen me acting suspiciously in the pool with several children. This was January. The pool was a sheet of ice and had been closed for months by the time I arrived.

The current administration learned a valuable lesson on 9-11, that it's easier to rule in an atmosphere of fear. It has been the policy of this administration to propagate that atmosphere. Two of their greatest tools in this campaign have been terrorists and pedophiles. This is why I'm here in the first place, risking myself. Because someone needs to take a stand, even it's just a small one. I was tired of sitting and stewing in frustration.

Do you know? Most everyone that knows me knows that I'm attracted to young guys, and yet every one of those people still likes me. Sure they have kids, and they are worried about them. We all worry about our kids. But they know I'm not a danger to them. They've learned to look beyond the hype because they know me and know that if the 'facts' that are commonly known about people like me don't apply to me, then perhaps they don't apply to others either. They've learned to ask questions. They've learned that all imporant lesson that used to be so well known in our culture. 'Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.'

Oh go berate someone else, or at least read my following posts. I was following a thought to its logicial conclusion, not fucking advocating it.

Edit: good, you see.

Yeah, I was catching up. You definitely seem to be doing your best to look for a real solution, not just seek out some kind of half-baked attempt to feel like you're doing something.

This whole thing is crazy. Normally rationally posters seem to have completely tanked and all over the place we see baiting and flaming people simply for even discussing the topic. I've made it abundantly clear that I think child molestation is abominable, I reported DSN, resulting in his deletion, but I won't advocate murdering or locking up people innocent of crime and suddenly I'm 'pro-pedophile'. And if I report somone for flaming or baiting and the subject of such flames or baiting is a pedophile, the whole world blows up.

Why is it so impossible to understand that discussions like we're having, analysis from people like you and UT, has the benefit of helping people see, people who try to justify their urges, that we are not just out to mistreat them becaues we're misguided, but because we see a very real danger to themselves and others.

Suvyamara']Jocabia, I appreciate the sanity of your posts. I just wanted to address the sentence above. I think, if you'll give it some thought, that you would have to agree that it's not the existance of such crimes that has caused the problem with people afraid to interact with kids, but rather the media's portrayal of such crimes.

I've stated in other posts the details of my crime. I had a consenting (I know, I know, he was unable to consent, let's table that for another day) relationship with a 14 year old. We felt we were in love with each other. The night I was arrested I saw a news story about me on the television. In this report they stated that I was wanted for the violent rape of a young boy. They said that police from several states had been hunting for me for some time. That I had molested a string of kids in several states over a period of years. There was not a single ounce of truth to any of this. The next day further stories were released. Neighbors (I had been staying with my brother, as I'd just moved from out of state and didn't have a place or a job yet) were interviewed, they said they described me as a violent person who had often been seen talking to local children. In fact I had talked to no one there in the month I'd lived there. One of them even stated that he'd seen me acting suspiciously in the pool with several children. This was January. The pool was a sheet of ice and had been closed for months by the time I arrived.

The current administration learned a valuable lesson on 9-11, that it's easier to rule in an atmosphere of fear. It has been the policy of this administration to propagate that atmosphere. Two of their greatest tools in this campaign have been terrorists and pedophiles. This is why I'm here in the first place, risking myself. Because someone needs to take a stand, even it's just a small one. I was tired of sitting and stewing in frustration.

Do you know? Most everyone that knows me knows that I'm attracted to young guys, and yet every one of those people still likes me. Sure they have kids, and they are worried about them. But they've learned to look beyond the hype because they know me and know that if the 'facts' that are commonly know about people like me don't apply to me, then perhaps they don't apply to others either. They've learned to ask questions. They've learned that all imporant lesson that used to be so well known in our culture. 'Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.'

The media rightfully portray suchs crimes as abominable.

It's not the media that makes the crimes a frightening reality. It's reality that makes these crimes a frightening reality. It's much more prevelant than even the media portrays. Read a study or two. Some have the percentage of children who are molested at 1 in 5. Read that again. That makes it more dangerous than terrorism, murder and politicians combined.

Some have the percentage of children who are molested at 1 in 5. Read that again. That makes it more dangerous than terrorism, murder and politicians combined.
Well, it makes it more prevalent then terrorism, murder, and politicians combined. Whether it's more dangerous depends on how dangerous you think terrorism, murder, and politicians are.

I wonder, would you be willing to have a BBQ with these people? Was not Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein all genetically human? Wasn't Charlie Manson a person. Did they have rights?

The answer is no. Even in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, felons no longer have rights when convicted. Once you take someone's life just for the hell of it or violate their person you are no longer human. You are now an animal.

Now, rape and molestation, IMHO should be a capital offense. Simple as that. Shoot them out back of the woodshed and make the other prisoners bury them.

And how do you know a liberal's dead--his heart stops bleeding.

Who did all the typing for you 'Bama?

Here is a shocker. I am a liberal and I don't like pedophilia.

You won't find many liberals justifying it.

Think before you generalize.

I wonder, would you be willing to have a BBQ with these people?
I'd be willing.
And you probably have already. Multiple times. You just don't know it.

The media rightfully portray suchs crimes as abominable.

It's not the media that makes the crimes a frightening reality. It's reality that makes these crimes a frightening reality. It's much more prevelant than even the media portrays. Read a study or two. Some have the percentage of children who are molested at 1 in 5. Read that again. That makes it more dangerous than terrorism, murder and politicians combined.

Percentages can be skewed to say anything you like, and nobody knows that better than the media. Trust me, I read studies all the time. Most of them are self-serving bullshit. You can find studies which will state that being the victim of molestation will turn you into a child molester yourself. If we can combine that with your 1 in 5 statistics we can reasonable assume that the number of child molesters in the world is in the billions.

The media is an arm of the government and if you don't believe that you've never watched Fox News. They have an agenda, and frightening John Q Public by telling him that child molesters are around every corner is a sure way to accomplish it.

You want to see the results of media statistics?

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16373145&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46371&rfi=6

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph//story/0,,19396819-5001021,00.html

http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/1976777.html

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144965014257

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_293115109.html

That's just a little taste of what pedohysteria has gotten us.

Suvyamara']I just like violent movies and video games, but I'd never hurt anybody.

Explain to me the difference.

Alright, now that I've cooled down a bit, let me explain something.

You've stated before that though you consider yourself a "boy-lover", you strive to keep yourself away from boys. You actively deny yourself a sexual perversion which, if I understand you correctly, you do not necessarily condone. For that I commend you. Sexual desires are incredibly difficult to deny. When my ex calls me drunk at 2:00am, I'm usually at her house in under 15 minutes.

However, you've also stated that you have had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old boy. That I simply cannot accept, and I am glad that you received punishment for it. With all due respect, I think that your sentence was lenient, and were your sentencing up to me, you would have been jailed much longer.

Just like your video game analogy, thought cannot be criminalized. It goes against every principle necessary for relevant human thought. But once something sick and twisted crosses from thought into reality, such as murder, rape, child molestation, etc, the punishment cannot be harsh enough.

Every day I, like all human beings, face issues of self control. We all have our seperate tests in life. I have anger issues, as I'm sure you could tell from my previous posts. When someone does something that gets me angry, it can take everything I have not to go apeshit. Were I to lose self control I would undoubtedly do something fully deserving of punishment. You may not think anger can be as difficult to control as a sexual desire, but I assure you, it can.

We cannot afford to make excuses for people who act on desires they have which are inherently wrong. Sexual relationships with children are wrong. Me losing my temper and acting out in anger is wrong. The issue is not the wrongness of the thought, but the wrongness of acting on it.

While pedophiles and hebephiles may not be wrong in themselves, their thoughts are wrong. And should they act on those thoughts and become child molesters, they lose all sympathy from me, and become the lowest of human filth.

That was long, but I wanted to organize my thoughts and apologize for being curt before.

Suvyamara']Percentages can be skewed to say anything you like, and nobody knows that better than the media. Trust me, I read studies all the time. Most of them are self-serving bullshit. You can find studies which will state that being the victim of molestation will turn you into a child molester yourself. If we can combine that with your 1 in 5 statistics we can reasonable assume that the number of child molesters in the world is in the billions.

The media is an arm of the government and if you don't believe that you've never watched Fox News. They have an agenda, and frightening John Q Public by telling him that child molesters are around every corner is a sure way to accomplish it.

You want to see the results of media statistics?

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16373145&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46371&rfi=6

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph//story/0,,19396819-5001021,00.html

http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/1976777.html

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144965014257

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_293115109.html

That's just a little taste of what pedohysteria has gotten us.

What has that proven? Nothing. You haven't even shown correllation, let alone causation. Present anything that actually shows the causation you assert. Anything. At all.

At least one of the links doesn't even have a thing to do with pedophilia. One of them calls the hysteria a FARCE. Hardly supporting the hysteria.

Damn Jocabia!

Well done so far!

Suvyamara']Actually, I did that. They deleted it saying that such posts were not allowed.
What did you post? Considering we've had debates on this subject before (including this very thread), I find it hard to believe the mods would've censored something that benign.
People have threads vaporized for "ask a", which is comparatively harmless (when compared to pedophilia).

People are deated for content that isn't suitable for young minors.

I believe that if someone posts a pro-pedophilia post (even within another thread), they should get an immediate permanent forumban.
Ah, so it was the "ask a" that got the thread killed. And the mods have ruled on that last one a while back. Their justification was that it was better for people to be able to face people with unpopular ideas in an open debate of ideas rather than have them going off to some echo chamber where they hear nothing but how wonderful their point of view is. I think it's a good policy, but then I can back up my point of view.
I'm disgusted by the fact the pedophiles are permitted to hang out here, attempting to justify why they like to molest kids. Wouldn't surpise me if they're also using this forum as a way to meet potential prey.
Look, not once have I ever attempted to justify child molestation. I'm as upset by it as you are. And your accusation about my activities here are provably unjustified (through a simple search of my post history) and patently offensive.
Just point a news organization to this thread.

I'm sure that NS would get a very public black eye, and would very rapidly change its policy on pro-pedophile posts.
Trouble there is, if they read enough to know people like me are posting, they'll be exposed to the message of tollerance and reason I and those like me provide, and the intollerance and death threats coming from your camp. The media may be hostile toward pedophiles in general, but are you so confident in their inherent bias that you'd risk them actually showcasing my arguements?
Perhaps you also need to factor in how difficult it would be to live a lifetime of abstinence. Because frankly, I think that is what we absolutely must require of pedophiles. That is, if you believe that an adult having sex with a child is harmful, period, regardless of the circumstances, which I do. And I'm not talking about age of consent laws here....I'm talking about little children, pre-pubescent children. So, if we require that they always abstain, then why not also require that they take steps to ENSURE abstinence?
From this post, I can only assume that given enough time without sex, lacking consenting partners, you would resort to rape. You have some really screwed up views on sex.
Hey, even I'm straying in directions I would never actually go here...considering actions that I would never in good conscience be able to support...it shows how deep the distaste for this runs, but I can't help comparing it (unfairly) to other sexual orientations that have been traditionally found repugnant. It's hard to resist....and yet, I simply do not believe that this equates.
It's like that for a lot of people. There are many basicly good people, who would never consider draconian ideas like you've been proposing, but who would apply them without a second thought toward pedophiles. Apparently those absolute moral boundries aren't so absolute. Those inalienable rights aren't so inalienable.
While I don't believe you should be stripped of your rights if identified as a non-active pedophile, I believe that they should be monitored, and forced to accept psychiatric treatment against their will.
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but the lightbulb has to want to change. Psychiatic treatment doesn't work against a person's will.
Yes, I believe that is the fundamental difference. But then pedophiles like to tangle things up with age of consent laws, as though, once again, we are really talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old.
Don't you agree that such things are horrible and wrong? Face it, age of consent laws are specifically designed to criminalize sex between adults and children, but the way age of consent laws are set up, wherever you put the arbtrary line, you'll find exceptions that demonstrate it's the wrong place. Rather than adopt a flexible system for determining when someone has the maturity to make decisions about their own body, people keep standing behind a provably worthless system like age of consent.
No, they are not people.

So, I'm not a person. You don't want to think about the implications of that statement, but among other things, it means that the law doesn't apply to me, since only people can be prosecuted.

Anyone who believes they are just harmless people with a perverted sense of sexuality should volunteer in the foster care or sexual crimes fields for a while. Once you've seen an infant's mouth ripped open and scarred for life as a result of "daddy's" loving attentions you will realize that these creatures are not human. Once they commit the crime they move from disgusting animals that fantasize about it, to something akin to a demon.

I wish I believed in hell. It might make me feel there is adequate punishment available for what they do.

You seem to think that those child molesters are pedophiles. 90% of the time, it isn't a pedophile doing the molesting. And most pedophiles, like me, aren't molesting kids. You're targeting the wrong people.

IMO, Anyone posessing and looking at ANY form of child pornography (that includes the sick anime that passes as "harmless") should be forbidden from ever having children or working in an industry where they are exposed to children.

I see that you put harmless in quotes. Pray tell, who is harmed by a drawing?

Maybe we can breed it out of the gene pool that way. And if the sicko's that fantasize about it have any sense at all, they will agree that being in the presence of children presents a direct threat to the child. [/rant]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. I did a while ago, but after more than a year of working in an elementary school, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to do anything.

*********************

So....

I bet you want me to tell you how I really feel, right?
Not really, it's probably small minded and bigoted.
All I've seen here so far is people debating against pedos, although many of them arent tough enough. Who's this person defending pedos or trying to justify it? Links?
I'm a pedophile, and I've been debating it. It's just my account's been on the frits so I haven't been able to get on much in the last while. I'm trying to catch up.

You mean, who is advocating pedophilia? I was trying to compile a list...there was the Dark Shadowy Nexus, who may pop up again in puppet form, there is the Five Castes, there is [NS:::]Suvyamara...and I didn't read more of the OP's posts, but the OP doesn't seem to be supporting pedophilia...

Actually, the original poster admited to being attracted to children a ways into the thread. You guys really should read the threads you're responding to.
the trouble is with so many pedophiles who insist that what they do to children doesn't harm them. I've even come across the argument that we're the ones harming children by stigmatizing pedophilia or by "making a big deal" (their words not mine) of it. it wasn't so long ago that somebody in another thread tried to argue that we shouldn't call it "child abuse" anymore. and even in this current thread, we've seen an example of the "shell-game" swap of meanings, replacing what most of us mean here, adults having sex with kids, with sex between two teens where one is just a few months short of the age of consent. as if pedophilia is nothing more than the unfortunate timing of a birthday on the part of one willing and competent participant.

when you're dealing with that kind of self-justifying, self-serving intellectual dishonesty, trying to measure the danger posed by any particular pedophile according to whether he or she "would ever want to harm a child" is a recipe for exposing children to sexual molestation.
You are harming children by perpetuating this hysteria. Not only does the hysteria make it harder to determine the patterns of molesters (because hysteria will not tollerate information that runs contrary to it, ie. Rind et al) but it compounds the emotional trauma heaped on the victums of child molestation. You're willfully ignorant and complicit in the systematic traumatization of children who've been through quite enough of that.
Exactly...we see this on this very page...Suvyamara claiming that yes we ARE talking about a 20 year old having sex with a 17 year old, and going wholly by age of consent laws. Most of us are quite aware that age of consent laws alone do not define pedophilia. Teens having sex is QUITE different than an adult having sex with a teen, and different than an adult having sex with a pre-teen. Pretending that's it's all the same thing is nothing more than an attempt to shift direction.

Can you explain why the same activity is benign when another child is involved, but harmful and soul destroying when an adult does the same thing with a given child? Let's cut through all the crap and get at the heart of the issue, shall we?

Pedophiles' claims, such as those made over and over by the Dark Shadowy Nexus are so mind-boggling for the average person (re: non-pedophile), but it is exactly this kind of belief that children CAN consent, that children are NOT harmed by sex and that pedophiles are 'okay' that is only being helped by the links now possible because of technology. So these people have 'support groups' to tell each other how society is so unfair, and so against them for no reason. It becomes OUR fault that they are not welcome.

Why should it matter to you if I blame you for me not being welcome in society? I should think you'd be happy with the idea.

I've seen a lot of people on this forum spend a LOT of time debating these people, but the fact is, their minds are made up. I think they are hoping that children on this forum will start to see things their way, and say "you know, I want to have sex with a 35 year old, even though I'm 13, and I'm sure I'll be okay...this guy makes a convincing argument that I am a sexual being (hey, I masturbate, so he's got that right), and I'm sure these people would be gentle and I'd be okay...."

If he or she was swayed by my arguement, that would be a positive thing. Of course I would also hope that he or she was paying enough attention to my arguements to also realise that a lifetime of emotional torture from people like you being practically guarenteed makes any adult who would agree to such a thing criminally irresponsible at best.

In some ways we are overprotective of our children, and in some ways we deny them certain rights, but frankly, I think that is another conversation alltogether, not one to be confused with adults wanting to be allowed to have sex with children.
No. That is exactly the issue being argued. You want to deny children the right to self-determination in sexual matters. You feel that it isn't the place of the child to decide his or her sexual activites, it isn't the role of the parents either, so you feel the government is the ultimate arbiter of who gets to have sex with who and when. That is exactly what we're arguing about.
So basically, you aren't talking about pedophilia, you're talking about something (as described by Dem) murkier.

However, you also mention that you think we should 'teach children' what it means to consent. What evidence do you have that children are capable of understanding the ramifications of sexual activity, in particular sexual activity with adults? Because developmental research does not support the supposition that this sort of understanding is in fact possible. At what age it BECOMES possible, varies, but only within a certain amount of years.

So no, I am not going to talk to my four year old about what giving consent to sex with an adult means, because she is simply incapable at this developmental stage of grasping the concept. That you believe you are aware of the ramifications, and are conscious enough to give consent is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
And your side continues to deem children subhuman. What concepts exactly are entirely beyond the ability of a prepubesent child? What sudden ability is granted by puberty? You've got research proving children are incompotent? I hope it's more convincing than the neurological studies which proved jack shit earlier in the thread.
Okay, I'm going to give you pedophiles one post- list all of your points please and convince me why I should find your position acceptable to me as a Christian, an American, an Adult, a Future Parent, and someone who finds such acts and fantasies deplorable. One post to convince me why it should be acceptable- rather than having me go into a raving frenzy.
While you have certainly already made up your mind, as a christian, you should accept my position because the Bible, in the few instances where pedophilia is mentioned at all, supports it. Have you ever actually sat down and read that thing? Still, if you can find me a single place where God condemns pedophilia, you know, like he did with pork, sodomy, and poliester-cotton blends, I'll be happy to let you off the hook.

As an American, you should be oposed to the denial of due process and in favor of the rights of free speech, both of which form the foundation of my arguements.

As an adult, you should have the intelectual maturity to listen points of view that are different from your own, and should be reasonable enough to accept the evidence provided and not throw temper tantrums and engage in bullying.

As a future parent, you should be doing everything in your power to minimize the trauma done to children, and my position will do far more on that front than continuing the hysteria has any chance of doing.

As someone who finds such acts deplorable, you should support my position because the majority of child molestations are not commited by pedophiles (FBI sex offender expert Kenith Lanning puts the figure at 90% of sex offenses against children are commited by people who aren't pedophiles), and thus targeting pedophiles is not tackling the real issues that lead to child sexual abuse.

I know you've already made up your mind, but I hope that my ability to answer those questions helps someone, even if it isn't you.
Yeah, that's still pretty damn creepy. Especially if that child hasn't really hit puberty...I mean, mistaking them for older because they are physically developed is one thing. Being specifically attracted to that age is another. What makes them suddenly unattractive once they get a year or two older? I don't actually want an answer to that.
People grow out of your age of attraction. It happens to most people, unless you happen to be attracte to 60 year old grandmothers. It just happens to most pedophiles sooner than it does to you people.
Suvyamara']Nope. In fact I was in my late 20s at the time. I considered myself hetero and had dated women for years. Of course I always knew I was attracted to younger guys but never did anything about it (not since I was a teen myself). In fact it never even occured to me to do so. Then I met this boy. We became friends. Over a period of months we became close friends. After a couple months he began flirting with me. It grew more intense as time went on. During this time I came to realize that women, who had always left me vaguely unsatisfied, were not where my primary sexual attraction was focused. Finally after about a year of struggling with the issues of 'right and wrong' in this instance, I 'succumbed' to his wishes and our relationship became physical. Many of you will likely be pleased to hear that I later went to prison over it. That was over 10 years ago.
And clearly the things the boy was put through showed you how irresponsible it was of you to agree to put the boy in that position.
No, that isn't what it entails, else we'd be talking about sex with the mentally handicapped.

Isn't being a child considered a mental handicap to you? That seems to be the prevailing opinion from your camp.

Pedophelia is sex with pre-pubescent children.

Pedophilia isn't sex with anyone. It's attraction. See, this is what causes people to make misakes like confusing pedophiles with child molesters.

Teens who have hit puberty are another problem altogether.

I'll say, the rush of hormones helps them overcome some of the anti-sexual additudes they've been bombarded with all their lives, and the fact that they've reached puberty without an honest and frank discussion about sex means they'll experiment reaklessly with one another.

Lumping everyone under the age of consent as 'stupid and irrational' and 'completely moronic' does nothing at all to further the conversation, and in fact only helps to derail it even more.
Agreed.
I have yet to stop being stupid, irrational, immature and all words that are descriptive for someone of my age. That does not, however, mean I am not aware of my own short comming and those of my age group which are damned well near universal. And I have explained my point in this thread many times, only to have it ignored by those who feel victimized that society doesn't want them to have sex with children.
You said it, not me.
That's the predatory aspect of what you are. You use children, or minors if you like, for sexual gratification until they reach a certain age. Being attracted to a minor is one thing. Being attracted to someone because they are a minor is another, and inherently predatory.

If a child is dropped from a sexual relationship upon hitting 18, what do you think that does to them psychologically? They turn 18, and suddenly they become unnattractive to this adult whom they've shared a bond of trust and love with.

Call yourself a pedophile, hebephile, or whatever you like. Your sexual fantasy is predatory, and that makes you a terrible human being.
Let me see if I have this straight. You believe that the pedophiles automatically lose interest at the age of 18. You know, just like adults in commited relationships drop their partners when they start to get grey hair and wrinkles. You then argue that it's a problem because it ends. Do you even see the problems with your arguement?
We really ought to make knowing the difference between pedophile and child molester a prerequisite to posting on these topics.
Don't know how we'd do that, but still.
Agreed. It would really cut down on some of the less meaningful replies. Too bad there's no way to accomplish it.
I'd be more interested in a statistic about the percentage of pedophiles that are child molesters, than one about the percentage of molesters that are pedophiles. or did I miss it in all the pages and pages here?

I can help you with the math if you'd like. The most conservative study in this thread puts the percentage of pedophiles in the general population at 20%. Now, if the percentage of pedophiles in the population of child molesters is 10% we have some simple numbers for some simple math.

The proportion of molesting pedophiles to total pedophiles is 10%/20% = .5 relative to the proportion of molesting nonpedophiles to total nonpedophiles which is 90%/80% = 1.1

Those numbers show that a given nonpedophile is more than twice as likely to molest a child than a given pedophile. And that's using the most conservative numbers in the thread.
The media rightfully portray suchs crimes as abominable.

It's not the media that makes the crimes a frightening reality. It's reality that makes these crimes a frightening reality. It's much more prevelant than even the media portrays. Read a study or two. Some have the percentage of children who are molested at 1 in 5. Read that again. That makes it more dangerous than terrorism, murder and politicians combined.
Jocabia, you clearly didn't read his post. He was talking about the lies presented about him specifically in the media surrounding his arrest. That's the result of hysteria. Accurate reporting is supposed to be a given, but now adays, it's the exception.

Can you explain why the same activity is benign when another child is involved, but harmful and soul destroying when an adult does the same thing with a given child?

I would say because the type of attraction you and others like you possess, is predatory.
I dare say, you would find very few children who would be willing to have sex with you, out of sheer interest, and attraction.

In order to fulfill your desires, you must prey upon a child.
Even if "preying" means "talking them into it".

I must say, its very brave of you to admit your desires, even if on an anonymous forum.
As you say, you are a living representation of one of our societies biggest taboos.

However, It seems to me, you are seeking to justify your desires to anyone who will listen, and constantly use mincing of words and concepts to illustrate that point.

But tell me....

If, hypothetically, there was no legal age of consent, do you think many children would seek you out for sexual activites, without you having to "talk them into it", or coerce them in any way?

If not, then how can you argue that children have fully developed understandings of sex and sexuality?
If they did, you wouldnt have to convince them, they would simply gravitate to that end on thier own.

Yet...not many do.






Let's cut through all the crap and get at the heart of the issue, shall we?

I feel attraction to PRE-pubescents a little creepy, and it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
Attraction towards POST-pubescents (Ephebophilia) is normal, but they shouldn't be breaking tha law either. (As in the law should be there, and they shouldn't break it).

Child Molestation, I feel is a seperate matter, and there is a very good reason that there are harsh punishments. And there should always remain harsh punishments. Hurting anyone in anyway is totally wrong. Hurting anyone in a sexual way is worse, hurting someone young in a sexual way is even worse.

The point of this thread, and what pretty much all the 'Pedo-supporters' say, Is that paedophilia itself isn't the problem, but child molesters. I see few up in arms about beastiality (zoophiles), where I also feel that if they harm an animal it is wrong.

Summary: I feel that Child Molestation deserves SEVERE action. A feeling that you didn't choose to have doesn't.

Sexual desires are incredibly difficult to deny. When my ex calls me drunk at 2:00am, I'm usually at her house in under 15 minutes.


Let's understand one another. I don't advocate denial of sexual desire. That would be foolhardy. We're sexual beings and once we've reached a certain age (puberty usually) our bodies demand a sexual release. Denying that can lead to all sorts of problems. I just don't get my release with anyone else present. Not ideal, but you work with what you've got.

You may not think anger can be as difficult to control as a sexual desire, but I assure you, it can.

Oh, I certainly believe and agree with you. As stated elsewhere on this thread, only about 10% of sexual abuse cases are committed by pedophiles. Many of that remaining 90% are people who don't know how to deal with their anger. I've sat in group therapy with them for years. In fact, a lot of sex offender therapy deals with learning how to control anger and other irrational thoughts and behaviors.

We cannot afford to make excuses for people who act on desires they have which are inherently wrong. Sexual relationships with children are wrong. Me losing my temper and acting out in anger is wrong. The issue is not the wrongness of the thought, but the wrongness of acting on it.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you, but bear with me for a moment here. You and I both know that sexual relationships with children are wrong. We both know that giving in to your anger would be wrong. But imagine for a moment you meet a guy who just really rubs you the wrong way. Imagine further that this guy loves baiting you. He wants nothing more than for you to get into a fight with him. Now imagine some weird sorta 'Fight Club' scenario, where this guy actually wants to be hit. He constantly bugs you about. Hit me, hit me. I want you to hit me. It makes me feel great and it'll make you feel great too. Trust me, just hit me once and try it. The thing is, you really want to hit him. You've been dreaming about being able to just haul off and hit this guy. Now imagine this goes on every day for nearly a year. Don't you think you might eventually go ahead and hit him? Even tho you know it's wrong?

I know it's not a perfect comparison, but maybe it's enough to at least give you some glimpse into what I was feeling.


However, you've also stated that you have had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old boy. That I simply cannot accept, and I am glad that you received punishment for it. With all due respect, I think that your sentence was lenient, and were your sentencing up to me, you would have been jailed much longer.

So, why was my punishment too lenient for you? Are you for punishment or rehabilitation? The leading sex offender therapists in the country feel that prison does nothing but harm to sex offenders. They want to get them directly into therapy where they can address the issues that made them molest in the first place. Keep in mind that 90% vs. 10% equation. 90% of sex offenders are not MAA's or minor attracted adults. They are men and sometimes women who thru a combination of situation, poor judgement, and lack of impulse control acted out in a sexual manner with a minor. Therapy does wonders to keep such people from reoffending, which you have to admit should be the prime concern. In fact, studies have shown that sex offenders who undergo sex offender therapy (a requirement now upon release) have a recidivism rate of less than 6%, the lowest among any type of criminal besides murderers, another 'crime of passion' type. The typical recidivism rate for general type criminals (drugs, burglary, etc) is around 30-35%.

What has that proven? Nothing. You haven't even shown correllation, let alone causation. Present anything that actually shows the causation you assert. Anything. At all.

My point was that the media skews it's news stories to stir hysteria. I thought I illustrated that point with my depiction of my own arrest and subsequent '15 minutes of fame'. The news articles then are simply indicative of the results of such hysteria. We had a news story here last week about the local branches of Big Brothers begging for volunteers. Seems men no longer want to risk being around young boys. Record lows of men are entering the teaching field. Teachers are warned not to put sun screen on their students, or hug them, or in fact have any sort of physical contact at all. A man here recently drove by a toddler alone on the street, rightfully fearing the reaction if he were seen putting the child in his car in order to bring her to the police. The toddler later drowned.

We're talking about statistics. More pedophiles than ever! shout statistics. Well you yourself, I believe, have established that only 10% of child molestation cases involve a pedophile. Who else is making up the numbers of sex offenders? Children in many cases, another victim of pedohysteria. Men guilty of no more than peeing in an alley, or in the woods. So do you think the media bothers to mention this when they are drumming up viewership for the weekend with their new 'Pedophile Alert!' news commentary?

I would say because the type of attraction you and others like you possess, is predatory.
I dare say, you would find very few children who would be willing to have sex with you, out of sheer interest, and attraction.

In order to fulfill your desires, you must prey upon a child.
Even if "preying" means "talking them into it".

I must say, its very brave of you to admit your desires, even if on an anonymous forum.
As you say, you are a living representation of one of our societies biggest taboos.

However, It seems to me, you are seeking to justify your desires to anyone who will listen, and constantly use mincing of words and concepts to illustrate that point.

But tell me....

If, hypothetically, there was no legal age of consent, do you think many children would seek you out for sexual activites, without you having to "talk them into it", or coerce them in any way?

If not, then how can you argue that children have fully developed understandings of sex and sexuality?
If they did, you wouldnt have to convince them, they would simply gravitate to that end on thier own.

Yet...not many do.


I think I've figured out who Five Castes reminds me of (aside from Michael Jackson).

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html

CLEVELAND -- It was probably not a defense the court had heard before.

A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.

The admitted pedophile offered a surprising defense Wednesday to 74 charges of rape, drugs and pandering obscenity to minors.

Appearing in an Ohio court for a pretrial hearing, Phillip Distasio, 34, of Rocky River, Ohio, said he was a pedophile.

He told the judge, "I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."

they should all be shot

they should all be shot

Who is they? Pedophiles? Why should they be shot?

Suvyamara']Who is they? Pedophiles? Why should they be shot?

Someone has to hold up the paper targets and clay pigeons, and it might as well be them.

Suvyamara']Who is they? Pedophiles? Why should they be shot?


Would you miss having 'em around?

Would you miss having 'em around?

Yes, actually. Some of my best friends are pedophiles.

Suvyamara']Yes, actually. Some of my best friends are pedophiles.

Good to know that.
Would your children miss having 'em around?

Good to know that.
Would your children miss having 'em around?

Perhaps you haven't been reading these threads. The pedophiles I know would be much safer to leave my children with than others. The pedophiles I know love and want to protect children. I know this is an alien concept to some, who think all pedophiles are simply looking for an opportunity to molest a child, but to paraphrase the bard, 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, BogMarsh, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

Suvyamara']Perhaps you haven't been reading these threads. The pedophiles I know would be much safer to leave my children with than others. The pedophiles I know love and want to protect children. I know this is an alien concept to some, who think all pedophiles are simply looking for an opportunity to molest a child, but to paraphrase the bard, 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, BogMarsh, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

To make a long story short: if you fail to report a pedo to the police,
you're part of the problem.

Sorry pedophiles, this is a situation where I don't really care about tolerance. You are demonised, and rightly so. And that's my stance, period. It's as firm as yours, which deems you to be in the 'right' on this as well.

Luckily, society refuses to support your stance.

To make a long story short: if you fail to report a pedo to the police, you're part of the problem.

What exactly am I supposed to report? You do realize that a crime would have had to have been committed somewhere right?

Suvyamara']What exactly am I supposed to report? You do realize that a crime would have had to have been committed somewhere right?

Here in Virginia, if you just mention to the police that you are a pedophile, that's probable cause to search your house for child porn, including your computer.

Note that I said "probable cause".

Child porn is illegal in the US. Mere possession is a crime.

Here in Virginia, if you just mention to the police that you are a pedophile, that's probable cause to search your house for child porn, including your computer.

Note that I said "probable cause".

Child porn is illegal in the US. Mere possession is a crime.

And you don't think that sort of civil rights violation is a crime in itself? Don't you people see where this kind of thing leads? Sure, it's great now, you're getting rid of the dreaded pedophile, scourge of a nation (not). But once they start treating people as criminals for their thoughts do you really think it will stop at pedophilia?

Last night I watched V for Vendetta. It depicted a world that was ruled by fear and propoganda. Where anyone 'different' was a criminal. Homosexuals, artist, comedians! Watch the movie if you haven't already. Ask yourself how far from that society you think we are at this point. Then realize that the decision to violate the civil rights of people who have committed no crime, but instead have an unpopular point of view on a particular subject is the first step down a sharp and slippery slope to fascism.

Suvyamara']And you don't think that sort of civil rights violation is a crime in itself? Don't you people see where this kind of thing leads?

No, it isn't a civil rights violation.

And I don't buy the slippery slope argument.

Suvyamara']And you don't think that sort of civil rights violation is a crime in itself? Don't you people see where this kind of thing leads? Sure, it's great now, you're getting rid of the dreaded pedophile, scourge of a nation (not). But once they start treating people as criminals for their thoughts do you really think it will stop at pedophilia?

Last night I watched V for Vendetta. It depicted a world that was ruled by fear and propoganda. Where anyone 'different' was a criminal. Homosexuals, artist, comedians! Watch the movie if you haven't already. Ask yourself how far from that society you think we are at this point. Then realize that the decision to violate the civil rights of people who have committed no crime, but instead have an unpopular point of view on a particular subject is the first step down a sharp and slippery slope to fascism.
Dude. They/you wanna have sex with children.

And I don't buy the slippery slope argument.
You use it when it's convenient though, I notice:p

I wish we could just shut down this thread, ban the pedophiles, and stop given them an audience. Seriously.

Dude. They/you wanna have sex with children.

Concise an to the point. However that doesn't warrent any sort of tough action unless there is also a probability that he could have sex with children not just want to.

I wish we could just shut down this thread, ban the pedophiles, and stop given them an audience. Seriously.


*seconds that motion*

*seconds that motion*

*jumps on the bandwagon and thirds*

Don't expect the ban of pedophilia supporters, although. In this forums you can be the advocate of anything you like, with some blurry exceptions. You can deny the holocaust, propose the genocide and elimination of muslims, defend paedophilia, alcohol and drug abuse and so forth.

We should ignore them, in any case, and let them move their defense to some Lolita commentary forums.

Don't expect the ban of pedophilia supporters, although. In this forums you can be the advocate of anything you like, with some blurry exceptions. You can deny the holocaust, propose the genocide and elimination of muslims, defend paedophilia, alcohol and drug abuse and so forth.

We should ignore them, in any case, and let them move their defense to some Lolita commentary forums.

I don't think they are trying to defend pedophilia, i think they are trying to oppose discrimination against them.

Dude. They/you wanna have sex with children.

Dude, you support the legalization of pot.

Dude, you mocked our leader.

Dude, you are black.

Dude, you've been listening to music that promotes violence towards women.


Show me the crime. You can't, because there hasn't been one committed. Tomorrow when you wake up and find that any of the above will subject you to search and surveillance don't cry and say you never saw it coming.

I don't think they are trying to defend pedophilia, i think they are trying to oppose discrimination against them.

A bit of semantics, alright.

I'll start to defend the discrimination of true rape porn fans, and perhaps also defend the right to advocate murder. After all, advocating murder is not commiting one, right?

Even better, I'll start to advocate the murder of paedophiles. No crime committed, after all I just promote that people murder them, I'm not murdering them myself.

That is not a crime, or an otherwise wrong act, no?

A bit of semantics, alright.

I'll start to defend the discrimination of true rape porn fans, and perhaps also defend the right to advocate murder. After all, advocating murder is not commiting one, right?

The thing is, no one is advocating rape, or any sexual activity. They are just saying: "I am atracted to children and i can't help it, I will never harm anybody so please don't strip me of my civil rights".

If anyone was actually justifying child porn or sex with children then yes you have a point.

From Wikipedia:

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (F65.4) defines pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." [17]

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia"[18] :

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

The actual boundaries between childhood and adolescence may vary in individual cases and are difficult to define in rigid terms of age. The World Health Organization, for instance, defines adolescence as the period of life between 10 and 19 years of age[19], though it is most often defined as the period of life between the ages of 13 and 18.

The APA diagnostic criteria do not require actual sexual activity with a child. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges alone, provided the subject meets the remaining criteria.

A perpetrator of child sexual abuse is, despite all medical definitions, commonly assumed to be a pedophile, and referred to as such; however, there may be other motivations for the crime[11] (such as stress, marital problems, or the unavailability of an adult partner[24]), much as adult rape can have non-sexual reasons. Thus, child sexual abuse alone may or may not be an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile; most perpetrators of it are in fact not primarily interested in children.[25]

Those who have committed sexual crimes against children, but do not meet the normal diagnosis criteria for pedophilia, are referred to as situational, opportunistic, or regressed offenders, whereas offenders primarily attracted toward children are called structured, preferential, or fixated pedophiles, as their orientation is fixed by the structure of their personality. It is estimated that only 2 to 10 percent of child sexual abuse perpetrators meet the regular criteria for pedophilia. (Kinsey-Report, Lautmann, Brongersma, Groth).

As noted by Abel, Mittleman, and Becker[26] (1985) and Ward et al. (1995), there are generally large characteristical distinctions between the two types of offenders. Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress; have a later onset of offending; have fewer, often familial victims; and have a general preference for adult partners. Pedophilic offenders, however, often start offending at an early age; often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial; are more appetitively driven to offend; and have values or beliefs that strongly support an offense lifestyle.

Most cases of father-daughter incest are believed to involve fathers who are situational offenders, rather than pedophiles.

# Ephebophilia, also known as hebephilia, is the condition of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to adolescents. These terms are used in contrast with pedophilia; however pedophilia is sometimes used more broadly in the western world to describe both ephebophilia and attraction to younger children, that is, any person younger than the legal age of consent. Ephebophilia is a term of recent coinage, and does not have broad academic acceptance as constituting a paraphilia.

Now, I'd like to make a few things straight:

1. Having sex with a 14-year-old boy does NOT make one a pedophile, as defined by the APA. At most one is a homosexual hebephile, and not classed as "sick" by psychiatric standards.

2. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.

3. As I said before, and as the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile) says, people who are attracted to teenagers are not widely seen as sick. Someone earlier brought up Britney Spears at 16. Other examples of teen sex symbols include the Olson twins and the American racist teen rock duo Prussian Blue. Are their fans sick, too?

I would say because the type of attraction you and others like you possess, is predatory.

So somehow my mental state will harm children? This is your response to my question of why the same activity is benign when another child is involved, but harmful and soul destroying when an adult is doing the exact same things.

I dare say, you would find very few children who would be willing to have sex with you, out of sheer interest, and attraction.

Interesting hypothesis. It is, of course, completely unprovable either way, so reflects nothing more than your own personal belief.

In order to fulfill your desires, you must prey upon a child.
Even if "preying" means "talking them into it".

And if that weren't the case? Would you find it acceptable if I were approached by a child for sex? No. Of course you wouldn't, so why don't you stop being dishonest with your arguements.

I must say, its very brave of you to admit your desires, even if on an anonymous forum.
As you say, you are a living representation of one of our societies biggest taboos.

Someone has to. Nothing will ever change if people like me stay silent and let the ignorant and the closed minded continue to rule unoposed.

However, It seems to me, you are seeking to justify your desires to anyone who will listen, and constantly use mincing of words and concepts to illustrate that point.

Like I said, let's cut through the crap. Tell me what it is you object to, and I'll show you why your fears are unjustified, or admit that I share those same concerns.

But tell me....

If, hypothetically, there was no legal age of consent, do you think many children would seek you out for sexual activites, without you having to "talk them into it", or coerce them in any way?

I believe it's possible some might. Must it be many for the opinions of the few to have any validity?

If not, then how can you argue that children have fully developed understandings of sex and sexuality?

They don't have fully developed understandings of sex and sexuality. They are kept deliberately and artificially ignorant. I consider that to be a problem, but you seem quite happy with the current state of affairs.

If they did, you wouldnt have to convince them, they would simply gravitate to that end on thier own.

Yet...not many do.
You mean the fact that, in a culture which tells kids they're going to hell for touching themselves and teaches them to feel shame at being looked at undressed, they don't seek out sex somehow proves anything? Are you on drugs?
I think I've figured out who Five Castes reminds me of (aside from Michael Jackson).

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html
Interesting. You've completely ignored everything I've ever said except that I'm a pedophile and I don't consider children mentally incompotent. You've especially ignored that I've repeatedly said sex with children is wrong and would result in a lifetime of torture for the child.
they should all be shot
Well, at least that's positive. They may still be calling for my execution for thought-crime, but at least they've finally hit upon my prefered method of execution.
Suvyamara']And you don't think that sort of civil rights violation is a crime in itself? Don't you people see where this kind of thing leads? Sure, it's great now, you're getting rid of the dreaded pedophile, scourge of a nation (not). But once they start treating people as criminals for their thoughts do you really think it will stop at pedophilia?

Last night I watched V for Vendetta. It depicted a world that was ruled by fear and propoganda. Where anyone 'different' was a criminal. Homosexuals, artist, comedians! Watch the movie if you haven't already. Ask yourself how far from that society you think we are at this point. Then realize that the decision to violate the civil rights of people who have committed no crime, but instead have an unpopular point of view on a particular subject is the first step down a sharp and slippery slope to fascism.
Great movie. It fills one with hope that one day, the silent majority will stand up and decide they're sick of living in fear and having their basic human rights trampled. Maybe I need a Guy Fawkse mask.

Suvyamara']Dude, you are black.

LMAO!!

Even better, I'll start to advocate the murder of paedophiles. No crime committed, after all I just promote that people murder them, I'm not murdering them myself.

That is not a crime, or an otherwise wrong act, no?

It's something rather sick to advocate, but yes, it is not a crime. It becomes a crime once people listening to you start killing paedophiles.

I suppose I should make something clear, then, since it seems some people think I support child molesters. I do not. Those who actually do molest children should be jailed and subjected to the harshest punishments that society can offer. The only people I'm trying to protect and support here are paedophiles--like me--who KNOW their attraction is wrong, and who would never actually act upon any of it. I want to do what I can to ensure that paedophiles can get the help they really need, rather than all of this stigma. We are not monsters. We have an unfortunate attraction that most of us would much rather be without. I know I'd much rather not have it. I hope that makes my point a little clearer.

Jocabia, you clearly didn't read his post. He was talking about the lies presented about him specifically in the media surrounding his arrest. That's the result of hysteria. Accurate reporting is supposed to be a given, but now adays, it's the exception.
I read it. He made a general statement about the media and I replied to it. I don't respond to anecdotal evidence. He presented no evidence that the story is true and the evidence he provided relating to similar incidents were either counter to his claim (calling the behavior of people overreacting 'hysteria') or had nothing to do with the point (like one about sexual harassment involving two people of the same age).

Suvyamara']My point was that the media skews it's news stories to stir hysteria.

It does? Hmmm... seemed to me you quoted an article CALLING the behavior hysteria. That's outright DISCOURAGING hysteria. Whoops! Did you forget what you're arguing or are you just that bad at this?

The first article is about how accusing a child of harrassment is ridiculous. That's also discouraging hysteria.

Reporting on hysteria while talking about it as if it's hysteria is the opposite of encouraging it.

Suvyamara']I thought I illustrated that point with my depiction of my own arrest and subsequent '15 minutes of fame'. The news articles then are simply indicative of the results of such hysteria. We had a news story here last week about the local branches of Big Brothers begging for volunteers. Seems men no longer want to risk being around young boys. Record lows of men are entering the teaching field. Teachers are warned not to put sun screen on their students, or hug them, or in fact have any sort of physical contact at all. A man here recently drove by a toddler alone on the street, rightfully fearing the reaction if he were seen putting the child in his car in order to bring her to the police. The toddler later drowned.

I didn't say there is no hysteria. I said you've not shown the media is the cause in any way. Hell, your links actually showed the opposite of your claim.


Suvyamara']We're talking about statistics. More pedophiles than ever! shout statistics. Well you yourself, I believe, have established that only 10% of child molestation cases involve a pedophile. Who else is making up the numbers of sex offenders? Children in many cases, another victim of pedohysteria. Men guilty of no more than peeing in an alley, or in the woods. So do you think the media bothers to mention this when they are drumming up viewership for the weekend with their new 'Pedophile Alert!' news commentary?
Again, present some evidence and stop making absurd claims.

Suvyamara']Dude, you support the legalization of pot.
It's already legal where I live.

Dude, you mocked our leader.
Not my leader.


Dude, you are black.
It's actually brown(ish).

Dude, you've been listening to music that promotes violence towards women.

I don't listen to rap.

Show me the crime. You can't, because there hasn't been one committed. Tomorrow when you wake up and find that any of the above will subject you to search and surveillance don't cry and say you never saw it coming.
Wanting sex with children is a bit worse then any of the above put together.
You can believe in equality for everybody and tolerance and all that gay stuff. But fuck them.

It does? Hmmm... seemed to me you quoted an article CALLING the behavior hysteria. That's outright DISCOURAGING hysteria. Whoops! Did you forget what you're arguing or are you just that bad at this?

The first article is about how accusing a child of harrassment is ridiculous. That's also discouraging hysteria.

Reporting on hysteria while talking about it as if it's hysteria is the opposite of encouraging it.

Actually print media, especially internet associations unaffiliated with major networks are much better about presenting balanced news articles. I included the article 'calling' the behavior hysteria because I thought it helped to illustrate my point. As for the article about the sexual harrassment case involving 2 kids, I believe it's all linked. Adults musn't touch children. Children musn't be touched. Children shouldn't touch children. Simplistic perhaps, but I believe it's all cause and effect.


Again, present some evidence and stop making absurd claims.

Here are a couple of very interesting papers for you. For all of you actually.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040121020307/http://www.freewebz.com/perspectives/specialissue/green1.pdf

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/levine/lev_ex.htm

They make for very interesting reading, illustrating some of the points I've tried to raise here.

Suvyamara']Actually print media, especially internet associations unaffiliated with major networks are much better about presenting balanced news articles. I included the article 'calling' the behavior hysteria because I thought it helped to illustrate my point. As for the article about the sexual harrassment case involving 2 kids, I believe it's all linked. Adults musn't touch children. Children musn't be touched. Children shouldn't touch children. Simplistic perhaps, but I believe it's all cause and effect.

Or perhaps it's a result of overblown sexual harassment laws. Nah, that would be to clear of a connection. It must by pedo-hysteria, to use your term.

Show a causal connection. Your articles show the opposite.


Here are a couple of very interesting papers for you. For all of you actually.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040121020307/http://www.freewebz.com/perspectives/specialissue/green1.pdf

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/levine/lev_ex.htm

They make for very interesting reading, illustrating some of the points I've tried to raise here.
They aren't interesting. Green is flawed. He argues about things do not fall under the clinical definition of the disorder. He looks at a study of those with the disorder that does a personality analysis, but he looks at each result separately rather than together, making them meaningless.

I'll give you an example:
Let's look at a murderer: He was wronged by a person. He was angry. He had a gun. He shot a person.
Green's argument essentially amounts to:
Everyone has been wronged so that is not a problem
Everyone gets angry so that is not the problem.
Lots of people have guns and they aren't in jail so that's not a problem.
Soldiers kill people and we don't throw them in jail so that's not a problem.
Also, doctors sometimes kill people without going to jail. What about accidents? Killing people isn't in and of itself a problem.

When you pretend to be isolating for something and you aren't it becomes useless, which is what he did. He says that introvertedness isn't clinical by itself, but it's not by itself, it's just that the other issues are more mild. Together they make a different case.

Meanwhile, the peer review was more than critical of the arguments, of the methodology, of the flawed analysis.

Shall I keep going?

Crap. I thought this creepy thread was finally locked.

Crap. I thought this creepy thread was finally locked.

I wish it was... really wish all pedo/child abuse threads were locked.

I wish it was... really wish all pedo/child abuse threads were locked.
Why? Why censor talk on the subject? Talk isn't harming anyone, is it? Frankly, so long as the discussion is rational, I wouldn't advice closing any thread, regardless of subject matter.

But then, I'm open-minded.

I wish it was... really wish all pedo/child abuse threads were locked.

I really wish all angry/murder threads were locked

I really wish all Republican/Fascist threads were locked.

Forget that not all angry people murder or Republicans are not all Fascists, let's just equate them like we're ignorant of reality.

Enough. On the part of an increasing number of individuals, this is going the way of advocacy. This situation is not satisfactory, unfortunately some bureaucracy is delaying matters.

Until such a time as an announcement is made, I would appreciate this particular discussion is muted. The territory this thread has now entered, no way in hell is this OK.