Paedophiles - where do they come from?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by gorillasgocrazy, Apr 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Oh, as for Stryder, when I think someone's a pedophile, I say it. I do think that in your case, Scott. I'm only pointing that as for someone who claims to be a sexual revolutionary, you sure don't declare what you think is okay. If you're not breaking the law, but like the idea of a blowjob from a 9 year old, say so.

    I like the idea of play rape. I don't want to be a rapist or rape victim.

    I think the fact that you're behaving like you're covering something up is what makes people want to puke.

    And this does relate to the topic. What makes a sex offender* is not someone fantasizing about sex with a 12 year old, having their adult partner act out a scene with them, and getting off on it. It's not illegal to have a bunch of Lolita short stories. The people who would actually exploit a child by looking at porn made with children or having sex with children are sex offenders*. And these are the people who justify their exploitation because the children still have their underwear on, or that oral isn't quite covered with a child.

    I don't fault anyone for what turns them on and I don't think getting off on something makes you any kind of sex offender. Doing it does, and lying makes you worse.

    Rather than justifying the urge to have sex with a kid or beat the shit out of someone you're sleeping with or rape them, what if we just lived out our desires in a sane, consensual way?

    "Gee, Brad, I really don't know why, but I get really excited about my partner giving a dog a blowjob and pretending to be a puppy."

    "Well, Amy, that's fucked up. I'm not doing that."

    "Would you maybe let our friend Susie dress up like a dog with strap-on?"

    "Oh, if I can have sex with Susie, sure."

    It sounds really stupid, but I think being open about sex and our desires is really key to having fulfilling sex lives without committing a crime or exploiting someone.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    I'm sorry, but I would -never- forcibly rape anyone, of any age. And yet, that is included in one of the definitions of 'pedophile'. Perhaps you want to libel me. If not, then don't give me that label.

    Actually I do. The problem, it seems, is that I don't do so in the sound bite versions that you and some other people would like.

    I don't really like blow jobs much; I have also pointed out the issue of relative sizes (think of the mouth of a nine year old; not very big right?)...

    I don't even like the idea. Now do you understand why I find being labelled "pedophile" so insulting?

    I find your definition of pedophile to be yours alone. Ok, let's see the various definitions of pedophile:
    1- The medical definition is someone 16 or over who is attracted to pre pubescent people.
    2- The legal definition is someone who engages in or is suspected of engaging in a sexual relationship with someone who is under the age of consent.
    3- The common usage definition is any adult who is sexually attracted to children or who sexually abuses a child.

    Then there's your definition; it seems that you think that being attracted to minors is ok, so long as you don't act on it or view the rather ill defined 'child porn'. Like the type of 'child porn' that teens have been charged for? You know, sexting?

    Ah yes, the minutae of what is politically correct; underwear not ok, bikini ok.. oral as in oral sex? If a minor is involved, that'd certainly be illegal anyway to take a picture of anyway. They may able to do it, if the ages are right, but no pics allowed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well that's good to know. So if someone who is attracted to minors, but has never actually done anything sexual with a minor, they wouldn't be a pedophile in your book?

    Lying can definitely get pretty bad.

    You make them all sound like they're the same thing. But 'kid' is a rather vague term, and beating the shit out of someone you're sleeping with or raping them is beyond the pale in my book.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I agree with you there tak. This doesn't mean, however, that I think that the laws are fine as they are.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    what does this have to do with the AOC?
    as a matter of fact what does gay rights have to do with anything?
    at one time a man could go to prison for sodomizing his wife.

    yeah, laws change, and always at a consensus.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Scott: There is a grain of truth in what James is saying; what it comes down to is that I must constantly stress that I follow the law here even if I disagree with it. For this reason, when a question like "what do you think is right?" is thrown at me, I frequently bring up the law as one of the factors in answering that question. Lucysnow apparently realized this but she didn't follow through with the only way to get around this problem; that is, she would have to specify something like "in a society where it's not against the law...". That would take care of the law bit at any rate.

    Absolute rubbish! Thoughts and ideas are not actions moron and therefore not illegal when expressed. If someone asks your opinion the answer doesn't have to be wrapped around the law, it simply means that despite the law you feel blah blah blah. For example I could admit to a deep desire to spray dayglo all over a government building, hell I know its illegal but if someone asked 'do you want to spray paint that building?' I could say yes. The fact that you have such concern for the law only shows that you are afraid to admit that you have sexual desires towards children and the only reason why you don't carry them out is because you fear the law and the wrath of society which basically answered my question. The rest of us already understand where you are coming from and the answers you absolutely cannot give.

    What I find interesting is that for someone who is CONVINCED there is nothing wrong with his desires, that they are completely natural and not just that welcomed, you are still too cowardly to stand behind your own convictions and admit you want the age of consent changed not out of idle interest but because it would give you as a male in his 30's the legal right to fuck children...or in your case girls in their teens, but you can't do that can you becase you know on some level that its wrong, you need the change of law to protect you from social admonishment, criticism and rage.
  8. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    I'd bet money you've slept with a minor, Scott. I didn't say "violently raped."

    Not at all. See, I don't mind additional explanation, but you never answer and then explain. You dance around it.

    If someone comes up to me and says, "Does rape ever turn you on?", I WANT to explain, but I'm not going to dodge the question, because the answer I give is yes, but requires an explanation to require that I think actually forcibly raping someone is dead wrong and never want to be raped. You never answer the question. It would be the equiv. of me going, "Well, rape is against the law. I like sex that isn't rape. Here are some definitions of the word rape linked here." See the difference? And that IS the behavior of a sex offender, not directly answering and accounting for sexual behavior.

    No. You find it insulting for the same reason a lot of sex offenders find it insulting. It makes you face who you are. Pedophiles don't call themselves pedophiles. They call themselves "boy lovers" and "Lolita fans."

    No, I think someone into little boys or girls is a pedo. I think someone fucking little boys or girls is a sex offender. I think someone viewing or purchasing porn where actual kids were used is a fucking freak, in a bad way. You're not so stupid as to not see the difference between a picture of an eight year old soul-kissing a thirty year old man in a picture while he jams a finger in her crotch and a couple of teens talking about eating pussy on the phone?

    You understand the concept of intention. So do the courts. If a couple of nine year old boys want to sit around engaging in soul kissing, adults do NOT have the right to take pictures or encourage it in any way for money.

    No, they're pedos. They're not sex offenders. I know people who get off the whole schoolgirl thing to the point where they fantasize about sex with a hot sixth grader, but I don't have to worry about them molesting a sixth grader. I think the real point of concern is how people handle their sexuality. Prepubescent children who aren't exposed to sex will NEVER initiate sexual activity with an adult. Children who are sexually abused, who don't tell or talk about it or hear about it, are spotted because of their psychiatric problems resulting from the activities. Doesn't that tell you something? How many cases have you heard about family child/parent incest being discovered because the child was HAPPY?

    The mark of this is the "nice" offender thinks if the kid initiates it afterward and has orgasms, it's fine. Orgasms have similar effects on the brain to heroin. A smackhead will go back for more skag. That doesn't mean being a pusher is right.

    I'm not fascinated that someone's turned on by children. Someone's turned on by everything on the planet. What fascinates me is that so many people sexually attracted to children are so interested in realizing their fantasies and justifying realizing them. Feeders aren't this way. Most of the most sadistic Doms/Dommes aren't this way. Infantalists aren't this way. Roleplaying rapists aren't this way. Most people cannot justify the devastating, real recorded effects of fully living out their fantasies. That's pretty interesting.
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    "In this online community, pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws. They portray themselves as battling for children's rights to engage in sex with adults, a fight they liken to the civil rights movement. "

    I guess sciforums can now count itself as helping give voice to the 'movement'.

    Good job mods, I mean how intellectually progressive, tolerant not to mention 'libertine'
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    As Tiassa might say, discussing, or allowing discussion of an argument doesn't mean one supports it. As the article you mention makes clear, there are definitely places that are more supportive of my views on this issue; I know a few of them myself. The same can be said concerning 9/11 and other issues that I also believe in.

    There is an element of hypocracy in what you're saying though Lucy. On the one hand, you want me to respond to this, that and the other. And yet, on the other, you now tell moderators that my responding to you and others (albeit not always the way you like) means that they are "helping give voice to the 'movement'."

    Anyway, I can easily imagine that this thread will be shut down now; because it's off topic or simply because of comments like the one you just made. But next time, before you ask someone their views and their reasoning, you may wish to think whether you really want to hear them or whether what you'd -really- like to do is to simply silence views that disagree with your own.
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    You'd be losing that bet.

    Good, but do you understand that many people include violent child rapists in their definition of pedophiles? Perhaps you do yourself...
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    How about you attempt to provide an example as to where I do this? If the thread is closed by then, feel free to PM me with the example.

    Someone might run with that 'yes' you gave and label you a potential rapist. I think it's better to give a complex answer then a soundbite 'yes' or 'no' for this very reason.

    There may be times when I don't directly answer the question. But whatever answer is given, I have a feeling that one can usually work with it and derive a better question for the next time. These issues aren't simple and I'm not going to pander to your desire and that of others here to reduce my thoughts to sound bites.

    I have also said that I don't like sex that -is- forcible rape, which is much more conclusive on my views on the subject than what you mention above.
  13. chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    A violent child rapist is still sexually attracted to a child, thus making him a pedophile.

    I don't see how that does not add up.

    A rapist can be a pedophile at the same time.


    Sorry if you have gone over this I quickly read through the thread without taking notes...

    The problem is scott that I feel you are justifying what they are doing based on the fact that they cannot help themselves and are just born pedofiles.

    I don't see how someone can genetically be specifically attracted to a child. To me, it seems like pedophiles are just people who would enjoy taking advantage of others sexually. Some use force and rape, others take advantage of children.

    Seems equally wrong to me.

    Either way, we don't excuse murderers for being deranged (most of them), nor should we excuse pedophiles. They are sick people, even if they were born that way, that does not justify letting them go and allowing them to cause the potential harm they inflict on children.
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i can just imagine the smooth, sugary answers you come up with on questions of moral depravity and exploitation of the innocent.
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Uh, no. I find it insulting for the reasons I delineated.

    Amoung the company of other MAAs (Minor Attracted Adults) online, I have found that they actually do at times call themselves pedos. But they mean it in a non rapist way. It's akin to how black friends at times use the N word with each other but would be deeply insulted if someone they don't know did it.

    Good to know you differentiate between the 3 categories anyway. In terms of the freaks; I think that anyone paying for child porn may well be getting their door knocked on (or knocked down) soon. Not exactly a smart move. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what I'd like to know is, how do you classify child porn? Is sexting child porn? Teenagers have certainly been charged for it; do you think that's the way things should be?

    Anyway, under -your- definition, I could be labelled a 'pedo', but I would have to point out that I am not solely attracted to minors; I am also attracted to women. I don't have a minor/adult preference per se, but because of the way the world is my girlfriends have always been adults. I think a more accurate term would be something like 'non age specific, generally hetero' or something to that effect.

    Sexting isn't just about messages of the voice and text variety. From wikipedia's entry on the term:
    Sexting (a portmanteau of sex and texting) is the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photos electronically, primarily between cell phones.
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    No I ask you this that and the other so there is no mistake on who you are and what it is you are trying to 'mainstream'. I think you should suffer the fate of ancient. Right now because of you and your freakish friends any search on this subject will have a string of links to this site. I ask you questions so that members like John when they come along don't think that you are just joking and having a laugh. I ask you questions because as long as you are a member of this community, as long as you use this site as a means to 'objectify' your position, to garner support or attract others like you, I will ask you questions so you are exposed for what you really are. In all the time I have been here I have never known this subject to leave such a sleazy feel as when its discussed by you. I have had conversations with Spookz on this and never once did I think he was a paedophile nor once did I feel he was trying to advocate it in any way and I don't even like him. But you! The fact that there are sites where you can easily discuss this with people who support you, the fact that you are familiar with these sites is reason enough to believe you don't belong in this community. And I think Phlog was right, its a blight on sciforums and it doesn't make the mods look progressive and scientifically objective it makes them look intellectually pretentious and liberal to the point of stupidity. Afterall there are some very young members on this site so well fucking done!

    Check this link Scott I am very curious as to what you think of the opinions there.

    So again I don't want to silence you and I don't want to change your mind. I think we should all have a true and honest picture of who you are on this if you are going to create many threads on this issue. Don't you be a hypocrite and pretend that you dont have some serious personal reasons why you want the AOC changed. Don't pretend you want it changed for the freedom of minors but so you can be free to act without fear of prison.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    And then people wonder why I don't want to be associated with the term. Imagine if people associated the term 'hetero' or 'gay' with rapists. Who'd want to be called either? Until people start differentiating, perhaps saying rapist pedophile, vs., say, LA (Law Abiding) pedophile, the term isn't going to be something that even people attracted to minors are going to want foisted on them. Because the term is so tainted, I think the safest for law abiding people who are attracted to minors would be something like LA MAAs (Law Abiding Minor Attracted Adults).

    I think that everyone does what they do because of the circumstances in their lives. This doesn't mean that people who significantly harm others shouldn't be prevented from doing so in the future.

    There are probably some MAAs like this. However, there are many who are emphatically -not- like this, such as the aforementioned LA MAAs. "Taking advantage of" is a rather loosely defined concept, but if by 'taking advantage', you mean 'breaking the law', I think we can agree that as a general rule it's not a good idea. I think that the case of Mary Kay Letourneau was interesting, because it clearly demonstrated that even though she broke the law, the teen who she was with did not feel harmed and has since married her. This doesn't mean that Mary Kay's action was the best one that could have been done had she known what she knows now, but it does show that there would probably be some disputing as to whether she 'took advantage' of Vili; by Vili himself.

    Perhaps the majority don't, but I believe that they only did what they felt would be best for them, in their twisted minds. So while I certainly agree that they should be confined and if money is tight, perhaps even killed to save some cash, I believe they are sick, and prefer it to the rather religious term 'evil'.

    For the pedophiles who have harmed children, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to continue doing so. However, from the beginning of this thread, it seems that they are now jailing people who haven't done any harm; who authorities simply believe -might- do harm. What we're getting to at this point, is thought crime and things like what was also in the OP, the paedofinder general, which certainly has elements of the Spanish Inquisition. Is this the type of thing you're hoping for?
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Scott: For the pedophiles who have harmed children, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to continue doing so. However, from the beginning of this thread, it seems that they are now jailing people who haven't done any harm; who authorities simply believe -might- do harm. What we're getting to at this point, is thought crime and things like what was also in the OP, the paedofinder general, which certainly has elements of the Spanish Inquisition. Is this the type of thing you're hoping for?

    Where exactly is the proof that people are being jailed for what they 'might' do? It is wrong to criminalize based on suspicion.

    You claim that they have jailed people for having sex with a child, I dont care if you prefer the word minor, even if there was no harm done. So if a child isn't scratched or bruised or hog-tied during the act there is no harm done. That's what people like you tell yourself to justify the act in the first place otherwise you would understand that the harm is done the moment you engaged with them sexually, the moment you crossed those boundaries.

    What's funny is I remember in another thread you saying that you had a difficult time meeting women except online. For some reason now this doesn't surprise me at all. Not one bit. I thik it must be hell for you to have to deal with 'a woman'.

    You don't like being associated with rapists:

    "Still, in their conversations, some pedophiles often maintain that the discussion sites are little more than support groups. They condemn violent child rapists and lament that they are often equated with such criminals. Many see themselves as spiritually connected to children and say that sexual contact is irrelevant. Yet the pedophiles consistently return to discussions justifying sex with minors..." NYTimes excerpts
  19. chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    The problem is that having sex with a child is a form of rape. A child is naiive and does not know what its doing. Just like having sex with a drunk girl is rape. I see absolutely no difference.

    Yes it does. Prevention is the best method for solving problems since the problem never shows up in the first place.

    If someone tells me they will have sex with a child, I will make sure they don't regardless of whether or not they have not committed the crime yet.

    I just don't think its right to take advantage of someone much younger than you. At that age they are easily to manipulate and to young to make correct decisions for themselves.

    Whats your definition of harmed? I don't care if the child falls in love with the pedophile, the entire act is wrong. You treat don't children that way. They are too young to make proper decisions.

    I agree with you that it is wrong to prosecute people who have not committed a crime. But tell me, if I said I was going to kill your family tomorrow and I knew where you lived how would you react? Would you not wish me to be jailed and kept from doing so?
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2009
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    First of all, how are you defining a child?
  21. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    I rethought that. I don't think you've offended probably in any direct way.

    Do you understand that ten million Red Chinese don't give a shit? And, no, I don't.

    All of the "answers" to Lucy's questions in that list. No direct answer, but a lot of rhetoric and you never state, "Hey, here's I think it should work."

    Yeah, but here's the thing: I'm an intelligent person who at least as the metaphorical cajones to say what she believes in, even the illegal things, and I'll say them to anyone if they ask my opinion. Do I believe smoking pot is okay? Yep. Do I think BDSM is okay? Yep. I know I'm right, therefore I don't flip out that someone's going to think I'm a drug addict or a pervert.

    Scott, quit bullshitting. People ask questions to get answers, not to "derive." If I want to derive, I won't ask. If I ask, I want direct answers. That's what intelligent, honest people do, or at least ones that don't have shit to cover up.

    I don't care what you like. I care what you do or intend to do, and why you justify it.

    Scott, it's not the same thing. I don't think you have a clue about why some black people refer to someone as a "nigga" in a friendly way. (It's not the same thing as "nigger.")

    I don't think you're that smart, but I also think you're very naive. Mags like "Child's Play" and "Lollitots" are pretty good at skating the line, although I argue pictures of kids fondling each other is child porn.

    Unless someone's retarded, I think they get my definition: It exploits a child directly for sexual gratification to be distributed/used by adults.

    Things that are not child porn:

    Drawings/illustrations that are sexualized images of children.

    Fiction about sex with children.
    The idea that you would look at a child outside of fantasy and think about touching them makes me ill. It doesn't make me feel better to think you could willingly touch a child in the future and then touch a grown woman.

    Are you only so literal and dense when it suits you? Duh.

    Scott, in the name of curiosity and keeping on topping, I'm guessing you did not have minor/adult sexual relations as a child?
  22. chris4355 Registered Senior Member

    Its hard to define since people grow at different rates. I think 18 is the proper age limit.
  23. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    When a societies law is way different from natural laws, any sane man has the authority to fight against it. People don't change such things because of peer pressure. Not because the law is right.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page