Thoughts on Pedophiles

[Dog]

In the past, I've shared the general American sentiment that pedophilia is terrible and that pedophiles are scum. I've recently had a change of heart. While I still am certainly against pedophilia and think that our cultural guidelines should be respected, I think society should stop villainizing pedophiles.

Why?

Their drive for sex with prepubescent children is just as strong (and there's actually evidence that it's stronger) as our drive for normal adult relations. The common counter to that statement seems to be along the lines of "The law is the law, and they made a conscious choice to break it." But I don't think it's that simple. If you found yourself in a society where it was illegal to have heterosexual adult sex, it certainly wouldn't be easy for you to suppress your desires. (Especially if heterosexual pornography was also outlawed)

I'm not suggesting that we change our cultural views on pedophilia to accomodate pedophiles. Rather, I think it's wrong to criminalize them for something they have little (if any) control over. They should be put in mental institutes like anyone else with a mental disorder, we should work to cure them, or if it's unfeasible, we should find some way for them to live in society without being a threat to children. For instance, if some forms of child pornography were made legal (such as provocative nude posing), I would be interested to know whether they would be able to resist their temptation to act on their urges.

What do you think?

[Genesis93]

i agree with you i was in school and all my class mates including my teacher were talking about how much they think they should burn i was afraid to speak up, but its a state of mind there born like that, at least that's what i read. allowances shouldn't be made but we should at least be more understanding

[ArmsMerchant]

One may not always be able to control his feelings--he can always control his actions.

Pedos, by definition, are criminals, and very harmful ones at that.

[Butcher]

I think what you're describing is the extreme end of it, No doubt there are people who simply cannot control their urges but it would be stupid to say that all pedophiles are like that.

*waits for JoePedo and SWF to find this thread*

[Genesis93]

One may not always be able to control his feelings--he can always control his actions.

easier said than done

[Proots]

If you truly believe what you are saying - then HOW exactly can they be cured? I know DAMN WELL there ain't any fuckin' power on this planet that's going to turn me off wanting to have sex with women (I'm a guy).

So - how are they to be "cured"?

But, I do agree with you though. They should be institutionalized, not because they can be cured - but, because it's certainly better than a prison - ESPECIALLY if it's for something you supposedly "can't help".

Interesting way of looking at things, though.

[The Methematician]

In the past, I've shared the general American sentiment that pedophilia is terrible and that pedophiles are scum..........

[a] How do you know that's a general american sentiment ???? Do you have any statistics, researches....etc etc that proves .... beyond any reasonable doubt that the sentiments that villainized pedophiles are......indeed.....the sentiments of the majority of the americans......and not just the sentiments of a few vocally loud minorities that happen to have the power of making the laws and writing tv shows ??????

would you like to share another general american sentiment with me ???

[B]*hands out a nigger-hate*

come on,.....let's share.....eh ....

[a giant pterodactyl]

emotion is when the soul speaks. what does your soul say?

[Genesis93]

maybe they should be put down? or locked up forever in a clean facility

[Butcher]

If you truly believe what you are saying - then HOW exactly can they be cured? I know DAMN WELL there ain't any fuckin' power on this planet that's going to turn me off wanting to have sex with women (I'm a guy).

So - how are they to be "cured"?

But, I do agree with you though. They should be institutionalized, not because they can be cured - but, because it's certainly better than a prison - ESPECIALLY if it's for something you supposedly "can't help".

Interesting way of looking at things, though.

Castration?

I'm willing to bet there are fuckloads of medications out there that make you lose your sex drive.

[Proots]

Castration?

I'm willing to bet there are fuckloads of medications out there that make you lose your sex drive.

So, release a pedophile back into society who may or MAY NOT take their medication? Pfff.

They created Suboxone so junkies couldn't get high........do the junkies who take Suboxone still get high? Fuckin' right they do.

Not a good plan.

[cleric]

In the past, I've shared the general American sentiment that pedophilia is terrible and that pedophiles are scum. I've recently had a change of heart. While I still am certainly against pedophilia and think that our cultural guidelines should be respected, I think society should stop villainizing pedophiles.

Why?

Their drive for sex with prepubescent children is just as strong (and there's actually evidence that it's stronger) as our drive for normal adult relations. The common counter to that statement seems to be along the lines of "The law is the law, and they made a conscious choice to break it." But I don't think it's that simple. If you found yourself in a society where it was illegal to have heterosexual adult sex, it certainly wouldn't be easy for you to suppress your desires. (Especially if heterosexual pornography was also outlawed)

I'm not suggesting that we change our cultural views on pedophilia to accomodate pedophiles. Rather, I think it's wrong to criminalize them for something they have little (if any) control over. They should be put in mental institutes like anyone else with a mental disorder, we should work to cure them, or if it's unfeasible, we should find some way for them to live in society without being a threat to children. For instance, if some forms of child pornography were made legal (such as provocative nude posing), I would be interested to know whether they would be able to resist their temptation to act on their urges.

What do you think?


i agree. i find that its along the same vein as those who have what are considered 'odd' sexual urges or anything like that. Just as a person might like to watch/have a certain type of sexual encounter or fantasy, this person is attracted to those in a certain age range and is sexually aroused by it. People seem to forget that withheld or not, a person can't control or very well choose what they are aroused by. They know what it is once they are, and might be able to tell you why its arousing, but not why they are aroused by it. i don't know what can be done to help pedophiles, but they are always very villanized.


If you truly believe what you are saying - then HOW exactly can they be cured? I know DAMN WELL there ain't any fuckin' power on this planet that's going to turn me off wanting to have sex with women (I'm a guy).

So - how are they to be "cured"?

i think you prove your own point a little with this- theres nothing that would turn you off from what you're attracted to or aroused by.. i think its much the same way with them, sadly. i agree with your other statement though, along with OP, that an institution is better than a prison for those that actually act on it, or for those that want help.
---
---
i think that a person's general personality should have to do with what they end up with when they act out on these things, too though. They are still just people in an unfortunate situation/with an unfortunate like. They may be sorrowful, or guilty, or they may be cocky and cold, and not care about what they have done. A person isn't just a pedophile, a pedophile is a person too, and i believe that in deciding where they go after they've committed an act should also rest on the way that they behave in regards to that act..
Its just a sad situation the way that they end up.


i don't remember the source, (it was on the news) but there is an older man, who had sex with an underaged teenager (15 i think?) in.. either the 60s or the 70s, but infront of his house there are signs plastered to it saying 'a sex offender lives here' and the same, in huge yellow letters on his (dark green) car. He did this years and years and years ago, and this was his legal sentence. Its horrible.

Theres also the topic of the victims in the situation, too. A little kid isn't going to want that kind of thing, but when you get into older teenagers (sadly, even younger ones, these days), the question of whether it was consensual, though illegal, comes into play. Kids aren't the perfect little angels that parents think they are, sometimes.

[Struwwelpeter]

Gayfox why do you condemn pedophilia but support homosexuality? Is there really any difference between consensual pedo relationships and consensual homosexual relationships?

[johnplywd]

Maybe young girls should stop asking for it...thats right I said it. Every where you go girls are acting all grown up so what do you expect a guy to do, ignore these girls with their tank tops and short-shorts on. Hell you hang around any elementary school and the girls are acting like college girls on spring break. Maybe their parents should stop letting them go out looking like 12 year old sluts.

[Proots]

Gayfox why do you condemn pedophilia but support homosexuality? Is there really any difference between consensual pedo relationships and consensual homosexual relationships?

Because, children can't really give "consent".

They're not old enough/mature enough to make logical, well thought out decisions. The decision making part of your brain is NOT developed hardly at all when you're a child.

IE : Is this the right thing to do? How will the affect me in the future? etc etc

[Trix Are For Kids]

In the past, I've shared the general American sentiment that pedophilia is terrible and that pedophiles are scum. I've recently had a change of heart. While I still am certainly against pedophilia and think that our cultural guidelines should be respected, I think society should stop villainizing pedophiles.

Why?

Their drive for sex with prepubescent children is just as strong (and there's actually evidence that it's stronger) as our drive for normal adult relations. The common counter to that statement seems to be along the lines of "The law is the law, and they made a conscious choice to break it." But I don't think it's that simple. If you found yourself in a society where it was illegal to have heterosexual adult sex, it certainly wouldn't be easy for you to suppress your desires. (Especially if heterosexual pornography was also outlawed)

I'm not suggesting that we change our cultural views on pedophilia to accomodate pedophiles. Rather, I think it's wrong to criminalize them for something they have little (if any) control over. They should be put in mental institutes like anyone else with a mental disorder, we should work to cure them, or if it's unfeasible, we should find some way for them to live in society without being a threat to children. For instance, if some forms of child pornography were made legal (such as provocative nude posing), I would be interested to know whether they would be able to resist their temptation to act on their urges.

What do you think?

This is why I'm mad at the world. This is why I steal and kill and rape. The second somebody does something that isn't considered 'normal', people either say that they are crazy or weird. But what if YOU'RE really the weird ones? What if our purpose for being is to fuck young girls? How do you know it isn't? Society's laws are obscene chains that bind people to its' will. What if I WANT to fuck a 17 yr old? Are you going to keep me from what I want? You are trying to force me to do something that I do not want to do, without compensation or consideration. To me, that is the meaning of SLAVERY. You hold me to your laws, which, I never ONCE had a choice to oppose. I never agreed to them, it is not a contract. I NEVER SIGNED. You assume that I will just follow you, but give me no say in the matter. This is why people always break rules. There are a few people who make them for everybody, with some people getting no input. If you want the world to function, it is impossible. We are NOT all one person, we each have our own ideas. If I had the choice, it would be every man for himself, because nobody should be controlling you, except you. /rant.

[Genesis93]

[a] How do you know that's a general american sentiment ???? Do you have any statistics, researches....etc etc that proves .... beyond any reasonable doubt that the sentiments that villainized pedophiles are......indeed.....the sentiments of the majority of the americans......and not just the sentiments of a few vocally loud minorities that happen to have the power of making the laws and writing tv shows ??????

would you like to share another general american sentiment with me ???

[B]*hands out a nigger-hate*

come on,.....let's share.....eh ....

stfu

[Struwwelpeter]

Because, children can't really give "consent".

They're not old enough/mature enough to make logical, well thought out decisions. The decision making part of your brain is NOT developed hardly at all when you're a child.

IE : Is this the right thing to do? How will the affect me in the future? etc etc

Really? Because I was always under the assumption that if a child wanted to have sex with an adult, it was because they wanted to do so, and that once a child can have a desire to have sex with an adult hey have already reached an age where they can make logical decisions (age of puberty onset is about twelve). Were you under a spell at age twelve? Did some underdevelopment in your brain prevent you from understanding that you will die if you jump off of a skyscraper? If not, why didn't you do something like that?

[Genesis93]

shutup jim

[Struwwelpeter]

The fact of the matter is that children are physiologically prepared to have sex at the age of twelve. Most girls at the age of twelve are already thinking about sex and dressing at least somewhat promiscuously, that's observable by taking a trip to any public school. If children were not psychologically prepared to have sex, they would not develop sexual desires at a young age and the development of their sexual organs would occur in their twenties. No one here is denying the fact that most children have sex at age 12-16, between children, so why is it different if a thirty year old man weds a fifteen year old? This was common behavior prior to the feminization of the West and it was common behavior before the advent of civilization as well.

[Butcher]

^ I agree, we should let nature decide whats old enough.

Why must society always interfere with nature?

[Struwwelpeter]

It didn't for the most part, only until women got a hand in society did this superficial bullshit arouse.

[Ron_Smythberg]

One may not always be able to control his feelings--he can always control his actions.

Pedos, by definition, are criminals, and very harmful ones at that.

I tend to agree.

They could be put to death with all I care for them. Scum.

[Struwwelpeter]

A ha ha ha, yet homosexuals are not to be put to death? They're the ones who should be put to death, they're the sex criminals.

[Frank]

Gayfox why do you condemn pedophilia but support homosexuality? Is there really any difference between consensual pedo relationships and consensual homosexual relationships?

Consensual pedo relations? What are you a spokesperson for nambla? Fact is most pedo and child relations ARE NOT consensual. Children are not capable of making those kinds of decisions and any right thinking adult should know this.

There's no way to cure a pedophile, I don't think therapy can help. Pedos are like serial killers, they wont stop until they're jailed or dead.

People tend to say "well what if it's just fantasy, what's wrong with that, pedos use kiddie porn to stay away from their urges of actual molestation" Bull fucking shit. Nobody uses porn to abstain for sexual intercourse, it just fuels your fantasy until you try to make it a reality. People who watch that shit create a market for it resulting in fathers taping themselves molesting their children, underage Slavic sex slaves being raped and filmed and countless other dickless actions. I don't care if you have fetish for feet, scat, urine, I may think it's disgusting but it doesn't result in the harm of innocent kids.

There's no justification for pedophilia, it's for people who can't get laid by consenting adults, end of discussion.

[Butcher]

I tend to agree.

They could be put to death with all I care for them. Scum.

Yeah maybe we can remove them from the gene pool eh? If we get rid of all pedophiles we can be sure to get rid of those certain genes and be one step closer to a master race......

Reminds of someone..... someone that you take issue with Smythberg.... who was it again? oh yeah, Hitler.

[Butcher]

Consensual pedo relations? What are you a spokesperson for nambla? Fact is most pedo and child relations ARE NOT consensual. Children are not capable of making those kinds of decisions and any right thinking adult should know this.

There's no way to cure a pedophile, I don't think therapy can help. Pedos are like serial killers, they wont stop until they're jailed or dead.

People tend to say "well what if it's just fantasy, what's wrong with that, pedos use kiddie porn to stay away from their urges of actual molestation" Bull fucking shit. Nobody uses porn to abstain for sexual intercourse, it just fuels your fantasy until you try to make it a reality. People who watch that shit create a market for it resulting in fathers taping themselves molesting their children, underage Slavic sex slaves being raped and filmed and countless other dickless actions. I don't care if you have fetish for feet, scat, urine, I may think it's disgusting but it doesn't result in the harm of innocent kids.

There's no justification for pedophilia, it's for people who can't get laid by consenting adults, end of discussion.

To be sure, what age group are you refering to? before puberty? I agree with that, but are you so naive as to say that teenagers are incapable of giving consent?

[Silverfuck]

I would love to see a face-off between JoethePedo and Greyfox about pedophilia. That would be really, really interesting.

[Hyper-dimension]

It's simple:

The cure is castration. :)

[Struwwelpeter]

Consensual pedo relations? What are you a spokesperson for nambla? Fact is most pedo and child relations ARE NOT consensual. Children are not capable of making those kinds of decisions and any right thinking adult should know this.

And I'll say it again: if children were not psychologically prepared to make their own sexual decisions they would develop sexual desires in their twenties not age twelve. It's unfortunate even men have adopted these womanly, motherly, feminized emotions. If you think that children are not capable of determining whether or not it's a good idea to have sex with an adult, then it must not be as bad as you say it is.

[Dog]

I think what you're describing is the extreme end of it, No doubt there are people who simply cannot control their urges but it would be stupid to say that all pedophiles are like that.

*waits for JoePedo and SWF to find this thread*

A study I recently read ("Brain Pathology in Pedophilic Offenders", Schiltz et al.) looked at the brains of pedophile sex offenders. They consistently found decreased gray matter in certain parts of the right hemisphere, as well as structural changes in other parts of the brain that are related to sexual activity.

Since sex offenders are the actual problem (ie. it isn't really significant if a person gets urges now and then and never acts on them), and there are some consistent differences when they're examined, that would suggest that at the very least, they tend to have different "wiring" than normal people. And further, if they're wired differently, then it stands to reason that it isn't as simple as choosing whether to like kids or not.

I mean, I can see why it's debatable whether such desires can be controlled, but again: How easy would it be for you if female porn was off-limits and you couldn't have sex with females?

I dunno...I'm just saying that I have some sympathy for them, and I think the current stance that a lot of people take is a bit too medieval for my tastes.

[Frank]

To be sure, what age group are you refering to? before puberty? I agree with that, but are you so naive as to say that teenagers are incapable of giving consent?

I was mainly talking about before puberty and even during. Yes, some teenagers are responsible enough to understand what's going on but generally when I hear about a 24 year old guy hanging with a 15 year old girl it's pretty obvious the guy is just using and manipulating the girl for sex.

[Young Meth]

They should honestly give cloning a go ahead and have one seedy ass place where pedos can fuck clone children with no consequences..

[Ron_Smythberg]

Yeah maybe we can remove them from the gene pool eh? If we get rid of all pedophiles we can be sure to get rid of those certain genes and be one step closer to a master race......

Reminds of someone..... someone that you take issue with Smythberg.... who was it again? oh yeah, Hitler.

If I recall correctly, Hitler was in fact a pedophile himself. There have been accounts of incestuous relationships with him and his prepubescent nieces.

[Frank]

And I'll say it again: if children were not psychologically prepared to make their own sexual decisions they would develop sexual desires in their twenties not age twelve. It's unfortunate even men have adopted these womanly, motherly, feminized emotions. If you think that children are not capable of determining whether or not it's a good idea to have sex with an adult, then it must not be as bad as you say it is.

Just because you have the desire to have sex doesn't mean you're fully developed and mature enough to understand the intricacies of the matter.

Girls as young as 5 play with dolls and pretend to be moms, this doesn't mean they're capable of being mothers. I used to play army when I was 8 but I sure as hell wasn't ready to strap on a flak jacket.

[1983]

Didn't have time to read / reply properly... but:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVjGsW0zXJw

Enjoy :D

Al

[Star Wars Fan]

In the past, I've shared the general American sentiment that pedophilia is terrible and that pedophiles are scum. I've recently had a change of heart.

Good, you broke through that social bullshit. Thankfully I never had that bullshit prooblem.

While I still am certainly against pedophilia and think that our cultural guidelines should be respected, I think society should stop villainizing pedophiles.

limited moralfaggotry

I'm not suggesting that we change our cultural views on pedophilia to accomodate pedophiles.

you should actually.

They should be put in mental institutes like anyone else with a mental disorder, we should work to cure them, or if it's unfeasible, we should find some way for them to live in society without being a threat to children.

What the Fuck is this shit? Oh look, the curebie in you is coming out. enjoy the genocide of pedophiles then. Especially as pedophilia was removed as a mental disorder in the 1970s. Stop calling different people 'disordered'

For instance, if some forms of child pornography were made legal (such as provocative nude posing), I would be interested to know whether they would be able to resist their temptation to act on their urges.

Some people argue that child modeling is child pornography. The stuff you see on 12chan and whatnot, LSmodeling and similar

What do you think?

you've evolved :D

One may not always be able to control his feelings--he can always control his actions.

Pedos, by definition, are criminals, and very harmful ones at that.

no, pedophilia is a sexual attraction, not a 'crime' Thankfully the government hasn't tried banning attraction or ~80% of adult males would be criminals (based off some sources)

*waits for JoePedo and SWF to find this thread*

lol

the sentiments of the majority of the americans......and not just the sentiments of a few vocally loud minorities that happen to have the power of making the laws and writing tv shows ??????

given my interactions and debates on namefag forums full of normals, the sentient seems to be somewhat there. At least people are afraid of discussing pedophilia and related subjects. Assuming they don't flame you outright.


Theres also the topic of the victims in the situation, too. A little kid isn't going to want that kind of thing

Kinsey studies show they DO

It didn't for the most part

It has. A LOT. Arguably Fight Clubs show that, many peoples' natural violent urges being suppressed.

Consensual pedo relations? What are you a spokesperson for nambla?

no, he isn't full of moralfaggotry


Fact is most pedo and child relations ARE NOT consensual. Children are not capable of making those kinds of decisions and any right thinking adult should know this.

in the cases often the children end up the dominating group.
http://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/chapter2.htm

People tend to say "well what if it's just fantasy, what's wrong with that, pedos use kiddie porn to stay away from their urges of actual molestation" Bull fucking shit. Nobody uses porn to abstain for sexual intercourse, it just fuels your fantasy until you try to make it a reality.

lol. You don't jerk off do you. Care to explain all the people into guro yet they don't cut up people and the like? Or the same with tentacle rape/porn?

People who watch that shit create a market for it resulting in fathers taping themselves molesting their children, underage Slavic sex slaves being raped and filmed and countless other dickless actions.

and if they don't watch people will make those videos, if for nothine more than the lulz.

There's no justification for pedophilia, it's for people who can't get laid by consenting adults, end of discussion.

"hey, you can't get a blonde so you settle for a brunette"

Also keep your normal/socialfaggotry out please :)

[Butcher]

If I recall correctly, Hitler was in fact a pedophile himself. There have been accounts of incestuous relationships with him and his prepubescent nieces.

So? Hitler was also part jewish. You're promoting the idea of killing off certain people for the benefit of society, which is what Hitler did, and I've seen you make arguments against Hitler.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're a hypocrite.

[Dog]

I was mainly talking about before puberty and even during. Yes, some teenagers are responsible enough to understand what's going on but generally when I hear about a 24 year old guy hanging with a 15 year old girl it's pretty obvious the guy is just using and manipulating the girl for sex.

Eh...I don't know about that. Manipulation isn't the same as doing something without consent. I mean, people manipulate people of their same age all the time...they do various things to get the other person more invested or more interested. In regards to sex, it really only matters if one party is somehow unaware of what is going on. If some guy is tricking a little kid into doing sexual favors and convinces the kid that it's normal behavior, then I'd see a problem. If some 24 year old gets a 15 year old to blow him, then I don't see a consentual problem. It isn't as though the 15 year old is unaware of what she's engaging in. Besides, biologically speaking, once somewhat hits puberty, then they are supposed to be engaging in sexual activity. So, for that reason...I'd have a hard time buying that a 15 year old having sex with another relatively young guy (ie. 20s) would inherently be problematic.

[Struwwelpeter]

What's wrong with manipulating a fifteen year old girl for sex? If the whore wanted to fuck, she fucked, where exactly is the crime in this?

Just because you have the desire to have sex doesn't mean you're fully developed and mature enough to understand the intricacies of the matter.

Girls as young as 5 play with dolls and pretend to be moms, this doesn't mean they're capable of being mothers. I used to play army when I was 8 but I sure as hell wasn't ready to strap on a flak jacket.

They are rehearsing to become mothers in their early teenage years, which is when most mothers would be having sex in a "natural" environment, and is when most girls in our society lose their virginity. You were rehearsing for battle at age eight which you probably would have been exposed to at age fifteen or so (average age during the bronze era was about seventeen). My grandfather was in the pacific killing gooks at age seventeen. Child soldiery is well-observed on this planet. Who are you to say there is something wrong with that?

How intricate is sex? It is one of the simplest activities you can engage in. Your claim that twelve year olds do not have the capacity to understand it is baseless and contradicts reality.

[Proots]

The fact of the matter is that children are physiologically prepared to have sex at the age of twelve. Most girls at the age of twelve are already thinking about sex and dressing at least somewhat promiscuously, that's observable by taking a trip to any public school. If children were not psychologically prepared to have sex, they would not develop sexual desires at a young age and the development of their sexual organs would occur in their twenties. No one here is denying the fact that most children have sex at age 12-16, between children, so why is it different if a thirty year old man weds a fifteen year old? This was common behavior prior to the feminization of the West and it was common behavior before the advent of civilization as well.

:facepalm:

You're fucked up. I will say no more. If you're actually okay with grown men/women molesting/raping children - you're FUCKED UP.

[Struwwelpeter]

I'm not okay with molestation, I think it should be punishable by death.

[Proots]

I'm not okay with molestation, I think it should be punishable by death.

Then.......how are you okay with a grown man/woman having sex with a 5 year old?

[Butcher]

Then.......how are you okay with a grown man/woman having sex with a 5 year old?

Did you not read his post?

[Struwwelpeter]

I'm not okay with that, I think that that is true pedophilia and should be punishable by death, what I'm talking about is sexually mature humans have sex with one another. Five year olds are not sexually mature.

[Struwwelpeter]

Thank you butcher.

[Frank]

How intricate is sex? It is one of the simplest activities you can engage in. Your claim that twelve year olds do not have the capacity to understand it is baseless and contradicts reality.

Well seeing as how sex is a way of creating life and at times a way of showing affection I'd say it's rather intricate and not suited for 12 year olds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1144244/Teenage-sister-boy-father-13-baby-age.html

"When I told my mum I thought I was going to get in trouble":facepalm:

Edit:And for the record I don't think a 26 year old boning a 15 year old is nowhere near as bad as molestation(which is what I generally think of when the word pedophile is used, molestors should be chemically castrated ) But I do however think it's sad that the only vagina a 26 year old can get near is a naive 15 year old girl who thinks she's hot shit for being with an older guy(when it reality he's a loser).

[Ron_Smythberg]

So? Hitler was also part jewish. You're promoting the idea of killing off certain people for the benefit of society, which is what Hitler did, and I've seen you make arguments against Hitler.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're a hypocrite.

I would like to see some proof of Hitler being part Jewish. I find that very hard to believe.

I am not a hypocrite, I never promoted the idea of killing pedophiles, I merely stated that if society instated laws that made child-rape an executable offense, I would not object to that.

[Proots]

Don't you think sexual maturity would be kinda hard to judge? Some 12 year olds are faaaaaaar more developed than others. Where would be the line?

And - Butcher - fuck off. I read his post, it's called NOT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE MEANT......hence.....THE QUESTIONS! This is a thread about pedophiles.....not a thread about kissing Jim Carrey ass/trying to score brownie points with him.

Stupid, cheap, wanna-be smart ass motherfucker.

[Struwwelpeter]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

Nine year old children are capable of giving birth to multiple babies. If you are capable of giving birth, you are sexually mature.

[Proots]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

Nine year old children are capable of giving birth to multiple babies. If you are capable of giving birth, you are sexually mature.

Being physically and mentally mature are very, very different. Coercion and manipulation would be the name of the game to fuck young, stupid girls - if indeed it was legal to have sex with "sexually mature" girls.

Kinda backwards, doncha think?

[Butcher]

Don't you think sexual maturity would be kinda hard to judge? Some 12 year olds are faaaaaaar more developed than others. Where would be the line?

And - Butcher - fuck off. I read his post, it's called NOT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE MEANT......hence.....THE QUESTIONS! This is a thread about pedophiles.....not a thread about kissing Jim Carrey ass/trying to score brownie points with him.

Stupid, cheap, wanna-be smart ass motherfucker.

It was pretty fucking clear what he meant, I don't see how you got "fucking 5 year olds" out of that.

[Resign the King]

A ha ha ha, yet homosexuals are not to be put to death? They're the ones who should be put to death, they're the sex criminals.

How are they sex criminals? Consensual sex between two sexually developed people in my opinion can never be a sex crime.

[Struwwelpeter]

Being physically and mentally mature are very, very different. Coercion and manipulation would be the name of the game to fuck young, stupid girls - if indeed it was legal to have sex with "sexually mature" girls.

Kinda backwards, doncha think?

I see you still haven't got the fucking memo, IF HUMANS WERE NOT PSYCHOLOGICALLY PREPARED TO HAVE SEX AT SAY, AGE TWELVE, THEY WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE OF HARNESSING A FETUS AS YOUNG AS AGE NINE. IF A HUMAN CAN HARVEST A FETUS, THEY HAVE ALREADY UNDERGONE THE SEVERE HORMONAL ASSFUCKING KNOWN AS PUBERTY, AND THEIR BRAIN HAS DEVELOPED SIGNIFICANTLY THANKS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF HIGH-QUALITY GROWTH HORMONE TO THE BRAIN, AND ARE CAPABLE OF DECIDING WHO THEY DO OR DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.

[Proots]

I see you still haven't got the fucking memo, IF HUMANS WERE NOT PSYCHOLOGICALLY PREPARED TO HAVE SEX AT SAY, AGE TWELVE, THEY WOULD NOT BE CAPABLE OF HARNESSING A FETUS AS YOUNG AS AGE NINE. IF A HUMAN CAN HARVEST A FETUS, THEY HAVE ALREADY UNDERGONE THE SEVERE HORMONAL ASSFUCKING KNOWN AS PUBERTY, AND THEIR BRAIN HAS DEVELOPED SIGNIFICANTLY THANKS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF HIGH-QUALITY GROWTH HORMONE TO THE BRAIN, AND ARE CAPABLE OF DECIDING WHO THEY DO OR DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.

That's the dumbest train of thought ever.

Since kids have developed motor skills by age 10-12 - I suppose it's okay for them to drive cars, too?

For someone who hates niggers - you sure are the spitting image of one.

[Butcher]

Being physically and mentally mature are very, very different. Coercion and manipulation would be the name of the game to fuck young, stupid girls - if indeed it was legal to have sex with "sexually mature" girls.

Kinda backwards, doncha think?

At least you can gauge physical maturity though and come up with an accurate prediction of when puberty occurs and base the laws on that, but with mental maturity its much more complicated, you have child geniuses on one end and on the other end, 50 year olds who are still immature, how can you make a law based on mental maturity?

[Proots]

At least you can gauge physical maturity though and come up with an accurate prediction of when puberty occurs and base the laws on that, but with mental maturity its much more complicated, you have child geniuses on one end and on the other end, 50 year olds who are still immature, how can you make a law based on mental maturity?

I'm going to throw this out there.

Neither you, nor Jim "Fuck Lations" Carrey are fathers.......and if you are - neither of you have daughters, correct?

[Struwwelpeter]

That's the dumbest train of thought ever.

Since kids have developed motor skills by age 10-12 - I suppose it's okay for them to drive cars, too?

For someone who hates niggers - you sure are the spitting image of one.

I don't see why not; I was perfectly capable of operating a vehicle at age twelve, and I often did, as did most of my friends, some of them were even racing at a competitive level. It was perfectly normal for children to drive at that age about fifty years ago, now that regulation has increased the number of traffic accidents have as well.

I don't hate black people.

[Struwwelpeter]

I'm going to throw this out there.

Neither you, nor Jim "Fuck Lations" Carrey are fathers.......and if you are - neither of you have daughters, correct?
Are you?

[Butcher]

I'm going to throw this out there.

Neither you, nor Jim "Fuck Lations" Carrey are fathers.......and if you are - neither of you have daughters, correct?

No, go on, but first let me ask why you quoted that post if you weren't going to tell me how to measure mental maturity?

[cleric]

The argument that kids have it in their bodies from an early age, so it could/should be utilized is kind of weak though, isn't it? Those things being there doesn't mean that they are ready to be used- its probably more like a natural learning process that they are there early and stay- so that the child has time to grow into and learn to understand those feelings. When you learn something in class, and you have the base knowledge of it, or are able to do whatever task that you're learning, it doesn't mean that you can go out and do it as a job. Becoming cyclic, for girls, or being able to ejaculate, for boys, doesn't mean you are ready to go out and have sex, because sex is not just an act of the body, its an act of the mind as well, whether you actively consider it one, or not.


Kinsey studies show they DO

-
lol. You don't jerk off do you. Care to explain all the people into guro yet they don't cut up people and the like? Or the same with tentacle rape/porn?


that could be argued, though on some level i agree (the first part). If it feels good, its likely that someone will want more of it, little kid or no. The question is the later effect on them, mentally. So, while they may 'want' it on a base level, it isn't the pedophile/the victimization that they want (when you bring societal views and the like into it), what they want is the base feelings- pleasure, caring (be it false or not, they may not know), ect. The argument is, for the most part, seen from those who 'know better' than a child, or , in a broader sense, someone who does not have that 'know better' (not saying it is better, i am just using the term) to determine what could hurt them/make them mentally 'unhealthy' in the future.
-
for that second part, i agree with you. People are aroused by an array of things and can't explain why that is. People still call them 'sick fucks' because they don't understand, or don't care to understand anything outside of their tastes. in these niche sort of circles, its always the people outside of them who have something to say. i like guro, not in a sexual sense, but i find it interesting, like someone would find sports comics interesting, or fighting games interesting. Its not a big deal, but that'd probably get me seen as sick to a lot of people. Some of it is 'too much' for me, and i can't handle real life guro and gore either, but eh. When people are bringing up how ~shocking~ a lot of those kinds of things are, they always bring forward the most extreme they can find. its just how folks work, unfortunately.

To tie it back into the pedophilia issue, the same is said for people who like loli and shotacon. They don't necessarily want to go out and have sex with kids- some do, but others get off on aspects of it (sometimes the submission, sometimes the vunerability- it matches a bit with the way some are aroused by the idea of having sex with a virgin, but taking it to another level) but in this case, it could also be said that the child is an emotional virgin as well, in the case of loli/shota and its attraction. i guess the same could be applied to actual acts of pedophilia also, but of course, not always. There are a lot of different reasons, and sometimes there aren't any, and its simple.

in so many words, yea.

[PirateJoe]

Neither you, nor Jim "Fuck Lations" Carrey are fathers.......and if you are - neither of you have daughters, correct?

Haha, this is what they call an "appeal to emotion".

I also find it interesting how you read "molest/rape" into JFLC's post that was obviously about consensual sex.

[Proots]

No, go on, but first let me ask why you quoted that post if you weren't going to tell me how to measure mental maturity?

I quoted that post just to let you know I was responding to what you were saying/not making a general statement.

You guys just have to realize, under 12 years old? Hell, even 12 years old - it doesn't matter HOW mature they look. They're kids, man! They're just...just babies! They're LITTLE GIRLS!

There's going to be exceptions to every rule - and I do understand what you're saying. But, you have to understand, there's ALWAYS going to be the "Well, what's with this cut off line? What's wrong with me doing a 17 yo?"

Do I think it's wrong if someone has sex with a 17 year old? Nope. But, the younger the age - the more iffy it gets. And, yes - in turn, that's a hypocrisy. I mean, read the one thread were a guy got arrested for getting nude pictures of and 11 year old girl of ps3 live or whatever.

I said that it was BOTH of their faults....the little girl sent him those pictures because she WANTED to. So, both are to blame.

Making it okay for 12 year olds to have sex will do faaaaar more harm than good. Should we crucify the dudes that want to screw hot, willing 12 year olds? No. But, we can't make that behavior come off as acceptable.

12 year olds don't THINK about the consequences. 12 year olds are CHILDREN. 12 year olds can be manipulated faaaaaar easier than someone older, with more experience.

It's just hard finding a cut-off age - and even HARDER gauging sexual maturity - for sexual maturity and mental maturity should go hand and hand. But, who's to be the judge of that? It's no more obscure than this whole 18 and up bullshit we preach in America.

[Vox Ducis]

You're all talking about maturity of children. The age of consent is very different around the world, even among the european countries (from 13 to 17). People attracted by teenagers can choose any country on the list if they want to have sex with them.
You can be accused if paedophilia in Ireland, and completely ignored for the same act in Spain or in Austria.

The real problem concerns those fucking rapists who destroy the life of children (below the age of maturity, whatever you thing it might be).

[Proots]

Haha, this is what they call an "appeal to emotion".

I also find it interesting how you read "molest/rape" into JFLC's post that was obviously about consensual sex.

IT IS MOLESTING AND RAPING if by LAW they aren't old enough TO GIVE CONSENT.

And also - if you were a father - you wouldn't be too pleased about a 20 year old fucking your 12 year old little girl either. Believe me.

[Struwwelpeter]

Thank you PirateJoe.

As I said, this hysteria over "pedophilia" is nothing more than a superficial, feminine opposition based on nothing more than the child's appearance. The only tactic used by these people is precisely what PirateJoe has said here, an appeal to emotion, which is a feminine trait I might add, consistent with illogical behavior.

[SKUV]

I think it's not a mental disorder, it's a preference just like some guys prefer big tits, some people like me just prefer young girls. I also like hanging out with them because they have an immature sense of humor, and they make me laugh.

The problem is most of society thinks that all pedo's are just out to molest children. You see, if I saw a straight man that wanted to have sex with pretty much every hot girl he met, I would think he has a small problem. That's because what kind of person can't just be friends with someone, without sex being the reason why you want to be friends with them?

A normal person would see a person as someone they would want to hang out with because you enjoy how they act and such. And maybe if that person happens to be a cute girl, over time the person will want to be closer than just friends.



So let's take an imaginary example:

Some 8 year old girl asks me about sex, so I say "How about you wait a week, and if you still want to know about it, then i'll tell you."
Obviously if the girl is honestly interested in it, she will still want to know in a week, or she will get distracted by all the things kids do and forget about it.

So let's say a week goes by, and she still wants to know, so I explain that most kids aren't interested in sex, but if she really wants to know she has the right to know the truth, rather than believing storks or something bring babies. Then I explain to her why there is sex in the first place, to reproduce, and how people reproduce. After that I explain to her that most often people don't have sex to reproduce, they do it for pleasure, because if both people at least somewhat know what they are doing, it can be a pleasurable experience. Then I would also explain that you can catch diseases from unsafe sex, and that condoms should always be involved in intercourse. Finally I would also explain (Without getting into the details) that there is different types of sex than intercourse, and at her age intercourse would only hurt her.

Ok so let's say she thinks she completely understands all of that, but of course being a child, she is most likely just thinking "Sounds like fun!", and so she asks me if we could have sex. So I tell her "How about you wait 3 weeks and think about it, then we'll see how you feel. Also the longer you wait to have sex, the better it is going to be when you do. Not to mention adults that do things like that with children can get in trouble, so keep that in mind."
So she agree's, and then 3 weeks later she wants to have sex still, so we do, without penetration of course.

Now, after giving her plenty of time to think, was there anything really wrong with that situation? Because it would seem that the child had plenty of time to think about what she learned, and if she had any doubts about giving consent, she would just change her mind in 3 weeks. I hope there is a real discussion, not just "HANG ALL PEDOS FROM THEIR TESTICLES!!!"

[Centipede2]

WHY SO SERIOUS, everybody. Seriously, is this where we dress up and pretend to be the 'ol blokes in hardback chairs with cigars in mouth, hands folded on a "important discussion" mahogany table, deciding what do do with our omnipotence?

There have been these threads before and no matter what the evidence/where the discussion goes, people's opinions are set by the moment they enter the thread and when you build an identity out of telling people-who-are-not-you what is or isn't right, to do, or whatever you're not going to want to change that. When a homosexual man bests a heterosexual man in an argument, he's wrong, because he's gay, right?

1/3 of the members of this thread are comprised of pretense
1/12 the members get off to identity-by-association

...whatever you get off by, either by Ronald Regan-o-try or otherwise, why don't you recognize the issue to be more complex than for or against.

If there is the possibility that guys like JP can have sexual relationships with underage children without causing harm to them, then good for him. If there is the possibility that guys like Jim Carrey can have sexual relationships with a "typical"-aged woman (or otherwise, I guess but just an example), either by "manipulating" her into sex or not and do more harm than good, than the difference isn't the age of the parties involved but their character.

Rape /= sex, woman can be manipulated at any age if you understand their psychology, what used to be evil is now good and vice versa...

Fuck it.

Seriously, just fuck it. Why give a shit, why continually debate over something so pointless, you're just throwing shit at each other, it's not even about pedo's which you're arguing, you just want to exert yourselves (the 1/3) onto the world like you're some sort of expert, regardless of what I care...you're stench is foul.

That's why...

I would love to see a face-off between JoethePedo and Greyfox about pedophilia. That would be really, really interesting.

No it wouldn't. It'd be stupid. What GreyFox can't argue he slathers in pretense.

/thread I don't give a fuck

[Butcher]

IT IS MOLESTING AND RAPING if by LAW they aren't old enough TO GIVE CONSENT.


So its wrong because its illegal and it's illegal because its wrong?


And also - if you were a father - you wouldn't be too pleased about a 20 year old fucking your 12 year old little girl either. Believe me.

No, but your 12 year old daughter might be pleased.

[Struwwelpeter]

And also - if you were a father - you wouldn't be too pleased about a 20 year old fucking your 12 year old little girl either. Believe me.

How would it be any different from a another twelve year old fucking her? The act is the same, a penis is inserted to to her orifices. I would not be surprised if my daughter wanted to have sex with an adult, middle school girls are only interested in high-school guys and older.

[Proots]

There have been these threads before and no matter what the evidence/where the discussion goes, people's opinions are set by the moment they enter the thread a

I dunno, man. Jim "Fuck Latinos" Carrey has pretty much changed my opinion.

At first I was really against it, but as he elaborated I'm starting to get the idea.

[Resign the King]

I think it's not a mental disorder, it's a preference just like some guys prefer big tits, some people like me just prefer young girls. I also like hanging out with them because they have an immature sense of humor, and they make me laugh.

The problem is most of society thinks that all pedo's are just out to molest children. You see, if I saw a straight man that wanted to have sex with pretty much every hot girl he met, I would think he has a small problem. That's because what kind of person can't just be friends with someone, without sex being the reason why you want to be friends with them?

A normal person would see a person as someone they would want to hang out with because you enjoy how they act and such. And maybe if that person happens to be a cute girl, over time the person will want to be closer than just friends.



So let's take an imaginary example:

Some 8 year old girl asks me about sex, so I say "How about you wait a week, and if you still want to know about it, then i'll tell you."
Obviously if the girl is honestly interested in it, she will still want to know in a week, or she will get distracted by all the things kids do and forget about it.

So let's say a week goes by, and she still wants to know, so I explain that most kids aren't interested in sex, but if she really wants to know she has the right to know the truth, rather than believing storks or something bring babies. Then I explain to her why there is sex in the first place, to reproduce, and how people reproduce. After that I explain to her that most often people don't have sex to reproduce, they do it for pleasure, because if both people at least somewhat know what they are doing, it can be a pleasurable experience. Then I would also explain that you can catch diseases from unsafe sex, and that condoms should always be involved in intercourse. Finally I would also explain (Without getting into the details) that there is different types of sex than intercourse, and at her age intercourse would only hurt her.

Ok so let's say she thinks she completely understands all of that, but of course being a child, she is most likely just thinking "Sounds like fun!", and so she asks me if we could have sex. So I tell her "How about you wait 3 weeks and think about it, then we'll see how you feel. Also the longer you wait to have sex, the better it is going to be when you do. Not to mention adults that do things like that with children can get in trouble, so keep that in mind."
So she agree's, and then 3 weeks later she wants to have sex still, so we do, without penetration of course.

Now, after giving her plenty of time to think, was there anything really wrong with that situation? Because it would seem that the child had plenty of time to think about what she learned, and if she had any doubts about giving consent, she would just change her mind in 3 weeks. I hope there is a real discussion, not just "HANG ALL PEDOS FROM THEIR TESTICLES!!!"

You definitely shouldn't hang around kids. :thumbsdown:

[Struwwelpeter]

Well I'm glad that's the case. I don't see why children are held to be so innocent in society. Humans are some of the most naturally evil, disgusting animals on this planet, they'll do anything to entertain their curiosity. Children are bullies, animal abusers, liars, pathologically selfish, to be honest they are the most evil individuals in society.

[SKUV]

You definitely shouldn't hang around kids. :thumbsdown:

Right, even though I would never bring up sex, or try to bring up sex around them. I already said that I can hang out with people, even little girls without thinking about secksing them. :thumbsdown:

[Resign the King]

Right, even though I would never bring up sex, or try to bring up sex around them. I already said that I can hang out with people, even little girls without thinking about secksing them. :thumbsdown:

Your post implies that if they brought up sex then it would be okay.

[Butcher]

I blame the concept of childhood innocence and the idea that "the children are our future", together they have created a society that worships children.

There was a link to an interesting article in this thread (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=16003), I'll post it here:http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118358476840657463.html

[SLIM]

They should honestly give cloning a go ahead and have one seedy ass place where pedos can fuck clone children with no consequences..

Brilliant idea actually.

[SLIM]

Your post implies that if they brought up sex then it would be okay.

It is if there's consent and they have an understanding of sex, wherever it came from be it sex ed at school, or being told by someone else.

[Centipede2]

I dunno, man. Jim "Fuck Latinos" Carrey has pretty much changed my opinion.

At first I was really against it, but as he elaborated I'm starting to get the idea.


Hmm...

Good for you then, I guess. My point is really, what does it matter, out of the hands of the parties involved. There's the government and those who spread hate with almost any unpopular issue - homosexuality, weed, etc. Now that you're opinion is changed, are you going to go to a rally for pedo-liberation?

Guys on the "pro" side -- whatever that means, because I think either you are a pedo, you are not a pedo and therefore are uninvolved, or are someone who hates on pedo's and wants to be involved for (lulz?) -- anyways, taking the obvious "pro" totse persective - JP's - he sets up probably thousands of accounts on forums and argues his perspective.

What changes then? More and more people are open to the idea of pedo-liberation, I guess, but is a critical-mass really going to be reached, when prop can't even not pass?? Dialectics??

I say, why not just not give a fuck. Rather than trying to make people be more "open" to the idea of pedophilia, why not just allow people to just not waste the energy and...not care. With potsmokers...so what they can do what they want to do, it doesn't harm me. With homosexuals...good for them there gay, again, good for them, yaay. Whatever, whatever.

You could tell the martians to stop glorbing and you could discuss why you are so outraged and discusted by glorb, but are you really going to go to Mars and stop those getting glorbed on? Why not spend your time on a more local issue, I heard there are some genocides going on, last time I checked getting chopped to pieces hurts more than getting a penis jabbed in your vag.

[Star Wars Fan]

i like guro, not in a sexual sense, but i find it interesting, like someone would find sports comics interesting, or fighting games interesting. Its not a big deal, but that'd probably get me seen as sick to a lot of people. Some of it is 'too much' for me, and i can't handle real life guro and gore either, but eh. When people are bringing up how ~shocking~ a lot of those kinds of things are, they always bring forward the most extreme they can find. its just how folks work, unfortunately.


ahh, that. Speaking of Guro have you seen the Pain Olympics. I showed people that and they didn't like it :/


To tie it back into the pedophilia issue, the same is said for people who like loli and shotacon.

I loled. I remember something from 7chan /cake/. The mod said this on a sticky.

"this is a board about Lolicon, NOT Pedophilia"

he was mad because the last board was getting full of pedo discussions and that was part of why the hosts got bitchy and /cake/ didn't come back when 7chan returned.

They don't necessarily want to go out and have sex with kids- some do, but others get off on aspects of it (sometimes the submission, sometimes the vunerability- it matches a bit with the way some are aroused by the idea of having sex with a virgin, but taking it to another level)

You forgot the cuteness/kawaii aspect and the anime factor as well. The drawings are 'happier' in a lot of anime compared to western animation (say, the *later* anime mainly; as a example compare Powerpuff Girls in the US vs. the Japanese version)

sounding like a weeaboo now :eek:, ah fuck it :D

but in this case, it could also be said that the child is an emotional virgin as well,

or they are remarkably 'adult' for their age-see Kodomo No Jikan's Konohoe Rin.

Though there are *sad* manga/anime that focus on the emotional friendship-Elfen Lied had a lot of sadness :(

in so many words, yea.

cool my nigga :cool:

[SKUV]

Your post implies that if they brought up sex then it would be okay.

Which is why I also said I would give the kid a week first, because I figure most kids would forget about it entirely because they have greater interests than sex.

Also if they are too embarrassed to go to their parents, it's better they get it from someone who can teach them about safe secks, rather than some kid on the playground who doesn't know shit. Although i'm guessing you might be thinking that learning secks from anyone else other than a pedo is better, so it's kind of pointless for me to argue with you.

[Butcher]

Hmm...

Good for you then, I guess. My point is really, what does it matter, out of the hands of the parties involved. There's the government and those who spread hate with almost any unpopular issue - homosexuality, weed, etc. Now that you're opinion is changed, are you going to go to a rally for pedo-liberation?

Guys on the "pro" side -- whatever that means, because I think either you are a pedo, you are not a pedo and therefore are uninvolved, or are someone who hates on pedo's and wants to be involved for (lulz?) -- anyways, taking the obvious "pro" totse persective - JP's - he sets up probably thousands of accounts on forums and argues his perspective.

What changes then? More and more people are open to the idea of pedo-liberation, I guess, but is a critical-mass really going to be reached, when prop 8 can't even pass?? Dialectics??

I say, why not just not give a fuck. Rather than trying to make people be more "open" to the idea of pedophilia, why not just allow people to just not waste the energy and...not care. With potsmokers...so what they can do what they want to do, it doesn't harm me. With homosexuals...good for them there gay, again, good for them, yaay. Whatever, whatever.

You could tell the martians to stop glorbing and you could discuss why you are so outraged and discusted by glorb, but are you really going to go to Mars and stop those getting glorbed on? Why not spend your time on a more local issue, I heard there are some genocides going on, last time I checked getting chopped to pieces hurts more than getting a penis jabbed in your vag.


I'll just stick to arguing on internet forums :D

[SLIM]

Most of my opinions have been discussed before in this thread (I'm paininvmuthafuckinass by the way):
http://www.bombshock.com/forum/philosophy-morals/2647-paedophilia-3.html

[PirateJoe]

IT IS MOLESTING AND RAPING if by LAW they aren't old enough TO GIVE CONSENT.

And also - if you were a father - you wouldn't be too pleased about a 20 year old fucking your 12 year old little girl either. Believe me.

So? We have a lot of fucking stupid and amoral laws on the books. In this case, the dictionary and legal definitions of rape and molestation have nothing to do with each other. Stop trying to pass one off as they other.

And how some fathers out there feel about their 12 year old daughters fucking 20 year olds is of little consequence. Some father's wouldn't want their child to have sex with a negro either but I think we can both agree that's fucking stupid.

[Struwwelpeter]

It is if there's consent and they have an understanding of sex, wherever it came from be it sex ed at school, or being told by someone else.

Thank you. It's not about molestation, molestation is a horrible crime. As the other poster mentioned, I shouldn't have even gotten in to this melodramatic bullshit, I'm really not even arguing for pedophilia, just irrational age of consent laws.

[Zay]

Well seeing as how sex is a way of creating life and at times a way of showing affection I'd say it's rather intricate and not suited for 12 year olds.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1144244/Teenage-sister-boy-father-13-baby-age.html

"When I told my mum I thought I was going to get in trouble":facepalm:

Edit:And for the record I don't think a 26 year old boning a 15 year old is nowhere near as bad as molestation(which is what I generally think of when the word pedophile is used, molestors should be chemically castrated ) But I do however think it's sad that the only vagina a 26 year old can get near is a naive 15 year old girl who thinks she's hot shit for being with an older guy(when it reality he's a loser).

Condoms. Yes, the dude is a loser. So is the girl. Raise your daughter right and she won't consent to sex with 26 year olds.

[SLIM]

Anyone else think that molest is a dirty word and taken way out of context too much? Same with "racism" and a lot of shit these days.

[Struwwelpeter]

Anyone else think that molest is a dirty word and taken way out of context too much? Same with "racism" and a lot of shit these days.

Bravo.

[cleric]

ahh, that. Speaking of Guro have you seen the Pain Olympics. I showed people that and they didn't like it :/
see, i've only heard of that, but i know its something i couldn't handle, so i just don't bother with it. But, it is kind of paradoxical how up in arms people do get about guro vs irl guro. It makes sense, but you'd think, of all people, they'd just say 'dude thats messed up' or 'i don't like that' rather than going nuts. People don't really just.. pass over what they don't like. Its not up to everyone else to withhold, immoral as others may find it, things. The entitlement is frustrating. Though, theres some guro that i don't like because its sad and i just get to feeling horrible for the victim. : ( thats the worst for me. i'm not too fond of stuff thats gore for the sake of gore, either. Lol, i guess i like 'classy' guro. Even if i don't like it, if there was effort/actual thought shown, i can respect it a bit more than 'omg lololz look hes all bloody n stuff its cool rite???!'.


I loled. I remember something from 7chan /cake/. The mod said this on a sticky.

"this is a board about Lolicon, NOT Pedophilia"

he was mad because the last board was getting full of pedo discussions and that was part of why the hosts got bitchy and /cake/ didn't come back when 7chan returned.


Haha, well, one leads to the other in trains of thought, so. Nobody wants to get vanned, though :x



You forgot the cuteness/kawaii aspect and the anime factor as well. The drawings are 'happier' in a lot of anime compared to western animation (say, the *later* anime mainly; as a example compare Powerpuff Girls in the US vs. the Japanese version)

sounding like a weeaboo now :eek:, ah fuck it :D

Very true. the kawaii thing is such a big deal in anime and manga,- large eyes, small bodies/features, careless/cute behaviour. Its logical. Something else worth mentioning, is that in a good bit of Shota and Loli, the kids aren't having an awful time. They sometimes end up having a loving boy/girl friend or at least Onii/Onee-san relationship with the older partner. If its child/child it ends up just seen as messing around and experimenting. Of course theres darker, or different examples of this, but its not all just you know. rape torture or something. Sometimes there are creeper vibes, but actually looking into it is worthwhile before screaming 'sickfuck'.



or they are remarkably 'adult' for their age-see Kodomo No Jikan's Konohoe Rin.

Though there are *sad* manga/anime that focus on the emotional friendship-Elfen Lied had a lot of sadness :(

This too. The tsundere types, or (i forget the other term) very serious, quiet types often play in. That kind of juxtaposition could be exciting to a person. (i also think of Gunslinger Girl when thinking of that type of thing).
Man, Elfen Lied : ( i didn't mess with that one. too sad.

[Star Wars Fan]

And also - if you were a father - you wouldn't be too pleased about a 20 year old fucking your 12 year old little girl either. Believe me.

Because you're not the only person fucking her anymore? ;)

snip

care to explain how beating your kids is effective 'punishment'?

[Struwwelpeter]

It is a serious consequence for a serious action; when the child is beaten it gradually learns to have respect for what we have deemed to be morally or behaviorally acceptable, it also instills within them a sense of humility. And when I say beating I mean what would be classified as an assault, not a spanking or a slap.

[Resign the King]

Which is why I also said I would give the kid a week first, because I figure most kids would forget about it entirely because they have greater interests than sex.

Also if they are too embarrassed to go to their parents, it's better they get it from someone who can teach them about safe secks, rather than some kid on the playground who doesn't know shit. Although i'm guessing you might be thinking that learning secks from anyone else other than a pedo is better, so it's kind of pointless for me to argue with you.

Would it be alright to give an eight year old child cocaine, or some alcohol for that matter because they wanted to try it? Just because a child could vaguely understand the concept of sex and want to try it doesn't mean you should do it. An eight year old can't properly understand the concept because eight year olds don't have real sexual feelings. Sexual thoughts are something you arrive at yourself once you reach puberty and then seek out. As an adult you should realize that she can't gain anything from having a sexual experience at so young an age and it could end up being really confusing and harmful for her. Basically if she was to ask if you wanted to you should say no, realizing it's just a stupid thing a kid would say.

[SLIM]

Would it be alright to give an eight year old child cocaine, or some alcohol for that matter because they wanted to try it? Just because a child could vaguely understand the concept of sex and want to try it doesn't mean you should do it. An eight year old can't properly understand the concept because eight year olds don't have real sexual feelings. Sexual thoughts are something you arrive at yourself once you reach puberty and then seek out. As an adult you should realize that she can't gain anything from having a sexual experience at so young an age and it could end up being really confusing and harmful for her. Basically if she was to ask if you wanted to you should say no, realizing it's just a stupid thing a kid would say.
:facepalm:
Did you read ANY of my posts in the thread on bombshock.

Also, sex and drugs are 2 different social vices, whether they're combined or not. Comparing them is fucking ignorant.

[Struwwelpeter]

Resign: A child should not be allowed to try cocaine or other forms of drugs because they are harmful and addictive. A penis in their sexually matured organs is not.

[SKUV]

Would it be alright to give an eight year old child cocaine, or some alcohol for that matter because they wanted to try it? Just because a child could vaguely understand the concept of sex and want to try it doesn't mean you should do it. An eight year old can't properly understand the concept because eight year olds don't have real sexual feelings. Sexual thoughts are something you arrive at yourself once you reach puberty and then seek out. As an adult you should realize that she can't gain anything from having a sexual experience at so young an age and it could end up being really confusing and harmful for her. Basically if she was to ask if you wanted to you should say no, realizing it's just a stupid thing a kid would say.

Honestly, why do you think that? (The bolded statement) It is common for children to masterbate, and to be curious about sex at a young age. I know I was, and even figured out how to order my first porn on PPV when I was about 8 or 9. :p


And about the cocaine and alcohol, that's completely different then sex, sex won't kill your brain cells and get you addicted. I would never give a child drugs, it ruins their brain development, even if they wanted to I would just explain to them why they shouldn't do that.

[SLIM]

Resign it's 3 on 1, we win. Bend over!

[Struwwelpeter]

LMFAO

[Resign the King]

Resign: A child should not be allowed to try cocaine or other forms of drugs because they are harmful and addictive. A penis in their sexually matured organs is not.

I agree, please note that I'm talking about someone who would have sex with an eight year old pre pubescent girl.

[Resign the King]

Resign it's 3 on 1, we win. Bend over!

In your dreams faggot.

[Star Wars Fan]

Anyone else think that molest is a dirty word and taken way out of context too much?

hit them with the official definition. social connotations are shit.

It is a serious consequence for a serious action; when the child is beaten it gradually learns to have respect for what we have deemed to be morally or behaviorally acceptable

lol. Do you have proof? There's plenty of examples of that not working/making things wrong.

Also fuck forcing people' socially 'acceptable' memes and ideas on the other.

it also instills within them a sense of humility.

or resolves them more/further and gives them a rallying point and a strong argument

And when I say beating I mean what would be classified as an assault, not a spanking or a slap.

and the effects are worse

PROTIP: not all people act the same in response to aggression. Some will fight back with maximum force to destroy the aggressor.

[SLIM]

In your dreams faggot.

You'll feel it in your dreams, bitch.

[Struwwelpeter]

Star Wars Fan: The parent is the nurturer. The parent is all the child can go to for support. When the child learns that even the parents who bore him can make his life a living hell, he realizes what the police or his fellow inmates could do to him, or in a more naturalistic reality, what other people could do to him for his actions. When the child learns that even those who love him can hate him, he learns to abide by the rules. I'm not really surprised that you feel children should not be disciplined, being a nigger and what not.

Resign: Cool.

[SKUV]

I agree, please note that I'm talking about someone who would have sex with an eight year old pre pubescent girl.

If you agree that drugs are a completely different subject, then why did you bring it up?

What does giving cocaine and alcohol just because the kid wants it have anything to do with the kid wanting sex? The only harm that would come from that is if the pedo actually abused the child instead of having normal, pleasurable sex.

[Dog]

I think it's not a mental disorder, it's a preference just like some guys prefer big tits, some people like me just prefer young girls.


I addressed this in another post. There's brain imaging that shows that pedophilic sex offenders have a noticeably different brain structure from "normals". You can also find brain differences when comparing homosexuals with heterosexuals. So, it goes way beyond "just being a preference". I think your analogy would only be appropriate if someone was attracted to big tits alone, not women.

[Star Wars Fan]

I'm not really surprised that you feel children should not be disciplined, being a nigger and what not.


you're bullshitting now. The African-American community beats its kids more than European-Americans and justifies it with all sorts of fucked up and shitty logic, worse than the arguments you provided (like quoting the bible and 'their parents did it to them' stuff)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm

[Resign the King]

Honestly, why do you think that? (The bolded statement) It is common for children to masterbate, and to be curious about sex at a young age. I know I was, and even figured out how to order my first porn on PPV when I was about 8 or 9. :p


And about the cocaine and alcohol, that's completely different then sex, sex won't kill your brain cells and get you addicted. I would never give a child drugs, it ruins their brain development, even if they wanted to I would just explain to them why they shouldn't do that.

The drug analogy wasn't the best one. My point about it is that young children are curious but it doesn't mean they are ready or that it's in their best interest to try anything. Is it really appropriate to have sex with someone who at best has just recently developed the logical abilities to understand there is no santa claus? You are implying it would be alright to have sexual interactions with a girl who just one week before found out storks didn't bring her to her parents door step. Young children cannot reach orgasm and don't really understand what sex is about, she may be developing curiosity (no doubt in part to the way you would word your explanation) but that's about it, she will still be very ignorant having just learned what it is.

You would be taking advantage of a young girls curiosity and ignorance for your own sexual pleasure. I agree it's not as bad as rape or molestation, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate thing to do. You don't know how the girl will react to it once it happens or how it could affect her when she's older and understand what actually happened. Also think about the risk you would be taking, she could feel ashamed and tell her mother, or she could talk about it to her friends. It would be a very bad idea all around.

[SKUV]

I addressed this in another post. There's brain imaging that shows that pedophilic sex offenders have a noticeably different brain structure from "normals". You can also find brain differences when comparing homosexuals with heterosexuals. So, it goes way beyond "just being a preference". I think your analogy would only be appropriate if someone was attracted to big tits alone, not women.

But do you think that people can develop these brain differences, or are they born with them?

Because i'm pretty sure I developed this attraction over time, when I was like 8 I was looking at older women after I discovered porn, up until about age 11 when I notice girls around me were getting more mature. I didn't have feelings for younger girls (like under 12) until I first saw some CP when I was about 14.

[Resign the King]

You'll feel it in your dreams, bitch.

I carry a crossbow in my dreams, try it bitch.

[Struwwelpeter]

you're bullshitting now. The African-American community beats its kids more than European-Americans and justifies it with all sorts of fucked up and shitty logic, worse than the arguments you provided (like quoting the bible and 'their parents did it to them' stuff)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin5.htm

Do you have any evidence that the "African American" community disciplines their children more than any other race? That link is amateur and fallacious in nature because it doesn't take in to account whether or not their parents were disciplining their children or abusing them, there is a huge difference.

[cleric]

It is a serious consequence for a serious action; when the child is beaten it gradually learns to have respect for what we have deemed to be morally or behaviorally acceptable, it also instills within them a sense of humility. And when I say beating I mean what would be classified as an assault, not a spanking or a slap.

They don't respect any type of morality, because them not doing that action is as simple as hitting a dog with a rolled paper when it pisses on the floor. It doesn't do it, because it doesn't want to get hit. its simple conditioning, no learning about it. You have to explain to a child why this is wrong or why it is right , and chances are, they will do it again. If you expect to teach a child something through hitting and hitting alone, trust that the child will most likely do that thing later in life, when you can't hit them, and will then hopefully learn why it is wrong. Beating someone into submitting to your beliefs also beats them into submitting to, and repeating your behaviours. It doesn't really do much good, but this is only my opinion.

[SLIM]

But do you think that people can develop these brain differences, or are they born with them?

Because i'm pretty sure I developed this attraction over time, when I was like 8 I was looking at older women after I discovered porn, up until about age 11 when I notice girls around me were getting more mature. I didn't have feelings for younger girls (like under 12) until I first saw some CP when I was about 14.

They can develop them. I know for a fact I was not born with the preference, although I still fuck chicks of legal age. I always prefered chicks my own age while growing up and older, never drastically younger, until I started listening to paedos. That's the problem with most people, they're ignorant, they always have to have their say instead of just listening sometimes. Eventually I was able to have conversations with paedos on a level of understanding with them.

As for hitting kids, notice all these muslim kids, they all respect their parents; do you know why? Their parents disciplined them properly. No it's not fear, they still love their parents. As much as I don't like muslims I've got to admit they have a lot more respect for their parents than most children, even though they have little respect for anyone else and majority claim racism on a lot of shit. They really do beat them as well, with poles and what ever object is close enough to them.

[Dog]

Condoms. Yes, the dude is a loser. So is the girl. Raise your daughter right and she won't consent to sex with 26 year olds.

I think the guy would just be an opportunist. Or lazy.

If you lived in Canada or Britain (where 16 is the age of consent), and you noticed that it was ridiculously easy to have sex with 16-year olds, are you saying you wouldn't do it? I sure as hell would. The only barrier for me would be social repercussions, like losing a job, having to deal with angry parents or some shit. I also wouldn't want to deflower her or anything...that'd be kind of weird.

[kingvitamin]

let them ride the lighting. they are sick people!

[Struwwelpeter]

They don't respect any type of morality, because them not doing that action is as simple as hitting a dog with a rolled paper when it pisses on the floor. It doesn't do it, because it doesn't want to get hit. its simple conditioning, no learning about it. You have to explain to a child why this is wrong or why it is right , and chances are, they will do it again. If you expect to teach a child something through hitting and hitting alone, trust that the child will most likely do that thing later in life, when you can't hit them, and will then hopefully learn why it is wrong. Beating someone into submitting to your beliefs also beats them into submitting to, and repeating your behaviours. It doesn't really do much good, but this is only my opinion.

Learning need not be a conscious effort. If the organism does what you wanted it to do, it has learned.

[SKUV]

You are implying it would be alright to have sexual interactions with a girl who just one week before found out storks didn't bring her to her parents door step. Young children cannot reach orgasm and don't really understand what sex is about, she may be developing curiosity


Actually I would have given her one week to see if she really did want to find out about sex. Then if for some reason she wanted to experiment with me, I would have given her 3 more weeks to think it over. 3 weeks is a long time, especially to children, and most would lose interest in that subject before then.

If a girl still wanted to do that after that time, then she must of decided herself that it would be in her best interest.


Not to mention this was an imaginary example, in most cases the child would have grown interest in sex long before wanting to consent to it. For example when I learned to read I was reading all the descriptions on DirectTv programs, and I happened to decide that "Women getting dirty and taking their clothes off" was in my best interests. Later on I would have gladly had sex with my 3rd grade teacher, she was hot (I thought so then and would still think so if I saw her now), if only she would ask me. But of course being a shy kid as I was, I wouldn't dare ask that myself.


And i've read in plenty of places that children can in fact have orgasms, something JP would probably agree with.

[SLIM]

let them ride the lighting. they are sick people!

How very open minded of you.

[kingvitamin]

one you sexually violate a child or anyone, you have forever screwed up their life. ask most people in prions, a huge percentage were violated as children, look where it got them. once something like that has happened you will never be the same again. ever watch the movie "sleepers". but i guess i'm not very open minded because i'm not a john wayne gacy sympathizer.

[Struwwelpeter]

And once again, maybe you should read the fucking thread and see that this has nothing to do with child molestation.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

Sure, some of them may not be able to control their feelings, and that's fine, but when they act on those feelings, they have the potential to ruin lives.

Pretty soon, the Japanese will invent robotic 8 year-olds, and our problems will be solved.

[SLIM]

one you sexually violate a child or anyone, you have forever screwed up their life. ask most people in prions, a huge percentage were violated as children, look where it got them. once something like that has happened you will never be the same again. ever watch the movie "sleepers". but i guess i'm not very open minded because i'm not a john wayne gacy sympathizer.

My dad was a prisoner for most of my time growing up because he was a repeat offender inside of prison to keep cocky pricks in line. I take his word for it, he said a lot of the paedos in there end up running the dinner line and go on as normal in prisons. If so many of them in prisons were "sexually abused" don't you think there'd be more assaulted paedos? Most paedos live very normal lives, work high paid jobs and are very intelligent. I know it's a bad example but even the news isn't wrong in this case when it shows most "offenders" are teachers, IT technicians, doctors and what have you.

Look up the actual definition of rape.

[SLIM]

Sure, some of them may not be able to control their feelings, and that's fine, but when they act on those feelings, they have the potential to ruin lives.

Pretty soon, the Japanese will invent robotic 8 year-olds, and our problems will be solved.
The media and government makes you feel like that. When society labels the young girl/boy a victim then of course they will feel like that if they're constantly being told that. If only you morons could shut up and listen there wouldn't be as many problems as there is.

I don't want shrapnel stuck in my dick when they self destruct if I accidentally push the red button.

[Resign the King]

Actually I would have given her one week to see if she really did want to find out about sex. Then if for some reason she wanted to experiment with me, I would have given her 3 more weeks to think it over. 3 weeks is a long time, especially to children, and most would lose interest in that subject before then.

If a girl still wanted to do that after that time, then she must of decided herself that it would be in her best interest.


Not to mention this was an imaginary example, in most cases the child would have grown interest in sex long before wanting to consent to it. For example when I learned to read I was reading all the descriptions on DirectTv programs, and I happened to decide that "Women getting dirty and taking their clothes off" was in my best interests. Later on I would have gladly had sex with my 3rd grade teacher, she was hot (I thought so then and would still think so if I saw her now), if only she would ask me. But of course being a shy kid as I was, I wouldn't dare ask that myself.


And i've read in plenty of places that children can in fact have orgasms, something JP would probably agree with.

I don't know enough about children's sexual development to comment further in that area.

I still think you shouldn't hang around kids, I think it would be highly inappropriate if this scenario ever came along and you acted on it, that a child really doesn't fully understand it, and that it would be taking advantage of someone who lacked adult intelligence and impulse control.

[SLIM]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (2 members and 1 guests)
slim-ov-derby*, ImJoeThePedo+
About fucking time.

[SKUV]

About fucking time.

This should get interesting now.

[Star Wars Fan]

They really do beat them as well, with poles and what ever object is close enough to them.

I remember this joke:

"Don't make me run your ass over with this taxi, son"


Do you have any evidence that the "African American" community disciplines their children more than any other race?

surprised you didn't jump on that stereotype, like you did that "niggers are lazy" and whatnot. :confused:

That link is amateur and fallacious in nature because it doesn't take in to account whether or not their parents were disciplining their children or abusing them, there is a huge difference.

It's the same shit, you're making up all sorts of distinctions to say "oh, at least I'm not doing X" or "I may be doing 1,2,3, but im not doing 4" type arguments.

[Star Wars Fan]

People don't really just.. pass over what they don't like.

lol. "How can you be attracted to that" and other weak arguments

Even if i don't like it, if there was effort/actual thought shown, i can respect it a bit more than 'omg lololz look hes all bloody n stuff its cool rite???!'.

have you seen Tokyo Gore Police? The Gore is so blatantly false we laughed at it when we showed it. They had guns that shot ourthuman fists :thumbsup:

Haha, well, one leads to the other in trains of thought, so. Nobody wants to get vanned, though :x

indeed.


Very true. the kawaii thing is such a big deal in anime and manga,- large eyes, small bodies/features, careless/cute behaviour. Its logical.

one of the reasons I like Anime, it's cute. Something you don't see a lot of in Western Animation.

Sometimes there are creeper vibes, but actually looking into it is worthwhile before screaming 'sickfuck'.

lol. Give the antis loli doujins. JUST AS PLANNED :D


This too. The tsundere types, or (i forget the other term) very serious, quiet types often play in. That kind of juxtaposition could be exciting to a person. (i also think of Gunslinger Girl when thinking of that type of thing).

lol. On the rag.

Man, Elfen Lied : ( i didn't mess with that one. too sad.

You should've dude. Was PURE WIN. But yeah some parts were REAL sad, like Lucy Killing Kouta's Dad and little sister :(

[Struwwelpeter]

surprised you didn't jump on that stereotype, like you did that "niggers are lazy" and whatnot. :confused:

What stereotype? Everyone knows black people don't look after their children.


It's the same shit, you're making up all sorts of distinctions to say "oh, at least I'm not doing X" or "I may be doing 1,2,3, but im not doing 4" type arguments.

LOL, come again? There is a difference between beating a child for no reason, and beating a child when they make a bad decision. One is a consequence for an action, the other is a simple abuse of a child. By your logic kidnapping a random person and putting them in a cage is the same as putting someone in prison.

[JoePedo]

Ahh.... here we come to the founding lesson of my childhood, learned in infancy to form a core and continued thereonward...

Pedos, by definition, are criminals, and very harmful ones at that.

Well, perhaps! 'n the really interesting thing?

One may not always be able to control his feelings--he can always control his actions.

They are "criminals" - "always" and "by definition" - whether they "control" their actions or not.

No matter what they do... or no matter what they don't do. They are "criminals" - because they were born. That's... all it takes.

Thoughtcrime... sexcrime... and now we have added a new one... racecrime. A fine definition, it is the crime... of being born.

Congratulations. You have improved on Orwell well. I'm certain he would be quite proud. And in case you're wondering? When this is the lessons learned from infancy, the social contract is broken. Period, and there's no going back now.

The answer, instead, is found in Judeo-Christian prophecy, ironically. Not the one in which highly-accelerated tritium slams into a pile of lithium deuteride, that from a third of the waters was unleashed upon a third of the earth, this starfire in the name of the bitterness of my peoples as the matter was written in the prophecy, nay... to be sure, you're going to fucking get that outcome in a damn fucking hurry if you don't pull your head out of your fucking ass and learn a little humility tempering your genocidal blasphemy of thinking you unilaterally dictate which of Gods' creatures lives and which are fun to torture and dispose for your sport, but in this case, another one.

When "good" and "evil" are turned upside down, when your sense of "nonjudgemental compassion without prejudice" commands you to hurt people just for existing, there is only one thing that restores balance, and set
the universe back in its proper order. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth. Burning for burning and wound for wound. When good and evil are thrown out the window, only balance can be restored, and it is the Law of Reprisal which teaches decency to a heart so twisted that its "good" commands it to destroy human lives.

Everyone on this forum knows you are a fool, old man, drunk on the blindness of your certainty that a mere century and the few hundred miles you may have seen with your eyes mean a damn in a world measured in galactic superclusters and billions of aeons... but are you truly fool enough to believe that you who rely on the pain of others truly does not yourself bleed? That your flesh does not burn when exposed to fire? Are you that much the fool to think that, when the Law of Yeshua bar Youseph is suspended, replaced with the older law to serve the purpouse for which it was forged, to break your false naming of evil as good by returning what you have done unto others unto you until you must find a new name and knowledge of what you do to your neighbor - do you really think yourself so much a God that your flesh remain untouched?

Millions will die because you have led them into evil, Greyfox, as a mere eye for an eye claims them. Tell us... is your heart truly so twisted that you claim it worth your life just to know that you are the cause of the death and suffering of others? Are you an avatar of evil, Greyfox... or are you weak? Will you falter as the fire claims your flesh, and begin to doubt whether evil was worth this for the mere sake of evil itself?

Inquiring minds may want to know... but it matters not, for the law of reprisal will bring its restoration to the balance, draw clarity to the line between, whether you even know yourself well enough to know the answer to the depth of your service or not.


http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6231/flagn.jpg

I ride for my race, because I die for my race. These are the lessons of my infancy and childhood, Greyfox, and I have learned them well.

What lessons have shaped you in your service to your spread of evil, Greyfox, and how did you learn them?

[SKUV]

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/6231/flagn.jpg


I didn't know girllovers have a gang sign, that's dope. :thumbsup:

[JustAnotherAsshole]

The media and government makes you feel like that. When society labels the young girl/boy a victim then of course they will feel like that if they're constantly being told that. If only you morons could shut up and listen there wouldn't be as many problems as there is.

Come on, you're saying that children abused by pedophiles only feel abused because they're told or made to feel that way?

The actual abuse has nothing to do with it? Being taken advantage of in such a way doesn't effect them? Being violated? Raped?

If children naturally weren't effected negatively by such experiences, what possible benefits would the government reap by making them feel that way?

[cleric]

Learning need not be a conscious effort. If the organism does what you wanted it to do, it has learned.

No, if an organism does what one wanted it to do, in this context, it has been conditioned. That is a form of learning, sure, but it isn't a particularly good way to go about things. The mind is bendable, but that doesn't mean it should be bent, in every case.

[cleric]

have you seen Tokyo Gore Police? The Gore is so blatantly false we laughed at it when we showed it. They had guns that shot ourthuman fists :thumbsup:


i havent- just heard of that one. Though, the one scene i'd looked at got to me. (i think it was from TGP..)


lol. On the rag.


i lold hard. That works too.


You should've dude. Was PURE WIN. But yeah some parts were REAL sad, like Lucy Killing Kouta's Dad and little sister :(

siiigh maybe some day : (

[JoePedo]

Wow... easy lolz...

Come on, you're saying that children abused by pedophiles...

...or, not abused by pedophiles, or abused by nonpedophiles...

...only feel abused because they're told or made to feel that way?

Probably varies from situation to situation, on the paramaters of that situation, doesn't it?

Doesn't it even disturb you in the least that your whole position relies entirely on every situation being exactly the same to go around making blanket assertions on shit you've never seen, weren't a part of, and know nothing about? Or is unrealism just not an obstacle to you?

The actual abuse has nothing to do with it?

Not if no such thing happened, no...

Did you know that in the "Child Abuse Accomodation Syndrome" model of the "ritual abuse panic" starting circa 1980 and continuing throughout the 1990s, those who "disclosed" state-defined "sexual abuse" in the coercive interrogation models - which included and encouraged leading questions, discarding of "wrong" answers, promises of reward for "right" answers, and the continuation of incarceration of the child "victim" under high-pressure interrogation techniques until the "right" answers had been "disclosed" - 75% of "victims" recanted their coerced testimony upon leaving state care (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chil_int.htm)?

So.. umm... tell me exactly how shit which didn't happen lead to negative outcomes and being continually abused and told they were "damaged" and "ruined" while being coached to give the "right" answers didn't?

Can you?

Being taken advantage of in such a way doesn't effect them?

...whether or not that happened...

Being violated?

...whether or not it happened...

Raped?

...whether or not it happened.

And yes. Shit-which-didn't-happen is obviously NOT the cause of any effect. Shit which did - say, being forced to be locked in a room with a person who tells you how horrible what they told you to say is and how ruined you are - probably is more likely than shit which didn't happen.

"Why is my friend going to jail?"

- last comment of record (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=7009977&page=1) of the unnamed friend of Anthony O'shea.

If children naturally weren't effected negatively by such experiences, what possible benefits would the government reap by making them feel that way?

Budget increases.

Seriously, do you have any idea HOW FUCKING MUCH BIGGER the "fag police" bureaus' budgets are after the "satanic panic," "stranger abduction," and "omg the internet is everywhere" promotions than, say, in 1969? This despite the fact that almost all violence against children still occurs in the home?

Mind you, even that's still lesser than the private sector. You see, if you can get away with the hypotheosis that "The therapist or interviewer must ask direct, leading questions, and ask them repeatedly until the child discloses abuse (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chil_int.htm)," do you know how much fucking money you can embezzle??

1. You have a paid client, usually on the states' dime, for as long as the victim resists your interrogation.

2. If/when you finally break them, you have a paid client - usually court-ordered and on the states' dime - to help them "adjust" to their role of "victim" - at least until they turn 18, and if you're lucky, you can trick them into continuing to pay you after that through your "sessions."

3. You can make a paying client out of ANYBODY, because if you pick someone at random and they deny being sexually abused, they are "resisting disclosure" and you need to keep "counseling" them until they disclose.

Easy money and a hell of a racket, enforced by the guns of the state. A similar thing happens in the drug war, where "addiction counselors" are court-ordered and must be selected from an "approved" list supplied by the state - simple coercion of commerce on a "kickback" scheme for inclusion.

So, tell me again how shit that DOESN'T happen, when it doesn't happen, causes everything... and shit that does happen causes nothing? 'cause I'd really like to hear it.

[JoePedo]

[a] How do you know that's a general american sentiment ???? Do you have any statistics, researches....etc etc that proves .... beyond any reasonable doubt that the sentiments that villainized pedophiles are......indeed.....the sentiments of the majority of the americans......and not just the sentiments of a few vocally loud minorities that happen to have the power of making the laws and writing tv shows ??????

^^ this.

Active fieldwork suggests an 80-90% dissent rate. Where that dissent is - from "this shouting person is just an unpleasant sadistic asshole" through to "all beings are equally free, and equal, in dignity and in rights," well... that hasn't been determined... but 80-90% will refuse to participate in the persecutions, across all tests, and an additional 5-10% tend to come back and apologize later after they stop, if they can do it in private...

In case you're wondering, when...

all my class mates including my teacher were talking about how much they think they should burn i was afraid to speak up

...creates a false consensus, this is what is known as a "terror regime." Democracy is suppressed by terroristic violence, creating a fear to speak up - and an active suppression of dialogue.

infront of his house there are signs plastered to it saying 'a sex offender lives here' and the same, in huge yellow letters on his (dark green) car.

http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/assets/images/500x/star-david-badge.jpg

maybe they should be put down? or locked up forever in a clean facility

Aw, shit guys - do I even NEED to draw the nazi comparisons on this one???

Gayfox why do you condemn pedophilia but support homosexuality?

Narcissistic personality disorder (http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=ArmsMerchant&tab=weblogs&uid=35779418). He's seeking approval, not experiencing genuine emotion like compassion.

They're not old enough/mature enough to make logical, well thought out decisions.

And you are?

Let's discuss where you decided it's worthwile to plunge the world into nuclear war because shit you saw on your televison set was just really, really fuckin' emo, m'kay??

This is why I steal and kill

+rep.

Fact is most pedo and child relations ARE NOT consensual.

Any actual proof? I'd like to see your methodology, there...

underage Slavic sex slaves being raped and filmed

Do you have links? Or were you just making stuff up?

I would love to see a face-off between JoethePedo and Greyfox about pedophilia. That would be really, really interesting.

:D

Maybe someday. Unfortunately, I deal with hate speech really shittily when tripping on acid, and pretty much lost my capacity "trancendental compassion for people who want to kill me" in a really bad trip... so, umm... it'll be a while before I recover enough for that to really happen like it should...

...I'll PM you a link if it ever does break out, though. ;)

A study I recently read ("Brain Pathology in Pedophilic Offenders", Schiltz et al.) looked at the brains of pedophile sex offenders. They consistently found...

Yeah... unfortunately, the toronto studies are crap, because it's (a) studies solely on an incarcerated population that (b) basically drew its pool from a "retard tank" for the bottom of the barrel within the system...

Freund (http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm) has a review of some more credible literature, including mendelian inheritance study and CAT/MRI imaging...

How intricate is sex? It is one of the simplest activities you can engage in. Your claim that twelve year olds do not have the capacity to understand it is baseless and contradicts reality.

It's actually been proven that fruit flies are capable of understanding sex, well enough to perpetuate the species...

I think that puts the "required mental capacity" at under a few thousand neurons total...

Enjoy

Ucking Feckpic!

Then.......how are you okay with a grown man/woman having sex with a 5 year old?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis

It's an upwards, not a downwards, limit.

Don't you think sexual maturity would be kinda hard to judge?

Holy shit you're uneducated. You really don't know what those words mean?

The colloquial expression is "old enough to bleed," and is measured by the shedding of uterine lining and the elution of ovum for fertilization. Not surprisingly, "ovulating" and "capable of reproduction" are pretty much synonyms, and it's REEEAAALY not hard to judge whether someone woke up in a pool of menstural blood, dude. Pretty fucking obvious, in fact, and you can't miss it.

Did you NOT pay attention in health class?

Being physically and mentally mature are very, very different.

Yeah, and you just threw a giant tantrum because not EVERYBODY was hating WITH you.

So, just out of curiosity... have you hit spermarche yet? Or do you NOT know enough to connect "goo shoots out the tip" with that concept, yet?

How are they sex criminals? Consensual sex between two sexually developed people in my opinion can never be a sex crime.

Opinionwise, I'd strip the extraneous crap from your sentence and agree.

Unfortunately, it is NOT "people bullshitting on the internet" who decide what qualifies as "crime," and it just so happens that homosexuality is a punishable offense in MOST jurisdictions, and virtually ALL jurisdictions just a short while ago. Whether or not something is against the LAW defines "crime," not whether something is "right" or "wrong," I'm afraid...

The real problem concerns those fucking rapists who destroy the life of children

Yes. Unfortunately, a lot of screaming idiots would rather ignore them, let them do their thing, and chase diaper faeries instead. Oh yay.

When a homosexual man bests a heterosexual man in an argument, he's wrong, because he's gay, right?

Yeah, that's the usual quality of argument...

...of course, it's usually paired with "if you disagree with me, you're obviously gay," which is always fun. You should see the number of times SWF has had his sexual orientation completely misattributed...

he sets up probably thousands of accounts on forums and argues his perspective.

:D

You're a pretty intelligent guesser. We monitor most internet traffic, in fact...

why not just allow people to just not waste the energy and...not care. With potsmokers...so what they can do what they want to do, it doesn't harm me. With homosexuals...good for them there gay, again, good for them, yaay. Whatever, whatever.

Eeeexcellent answer.

One of the most... disturbing problems I've seen is, well... not that other people hate people they've never met for being different from them, so much, but when these people can't accept anyone else having the right not to hate people they've never met. To me, that's a bit disturbing, honestly... "idk/idc" is probably the most rational response... and probably the best one.

he was mad because the last board was getting full of pedo discussions

...similarly, throwing a tantrum that people would dare discuss subjects which are "forbidden" is... pervasively common.

I wonder what this says about these people?

1. No one must ever discuss anything.

2. No one must ever disagree with me anywhere.

3. We should kill a fuckload of people.

...that's basically the platform, right there. That... kinda creeps me out a bit.

Anyone else think that molest is a dirty word and taken way out of context too much?

Yup. 'specially the "out of context" bits - its literal meaning is "to annoy mildly," in quality "no mi molestar, por favor" style...

Most people using it apparently actually don't even know what the words coming out of their mouth actually mean.

Because you're not the only person fucking her anymore?

Epic fucking win.

Seen the DHHS stats? You're probably more spot-on than you think...

Would it be alright to give an eight year old child cocaine?

...because sexual activity obviously involves sticking the penis in the dopamine transporter, rather than anywhere else...

or some alcohol for that matter because they wanted to try it?

I wonder, what are the alcoholism rates for the US versus europe, anyway??

Just because a child could vaguely understand the concept of sex

I'm wondering... just what do you understand as "the concept of sex," anyway??

Because in all my studies of sciences, many of which happened before the age of eight years, I have never encountered anything less complex than "rub the bits that feel good," and I'm really wondering WTF you're thinking of.

and want to try it doesn't mean you should do it.

Just because you want to try to dislike babyfuck, doesn't mean you should do it.

Now you know.

An eight year old can't properly understand the concept

Yeah. I'm STILL wondering WTF you actually think sexual activity IS because of silly statements like this...

eight year olds don't have real sexual feelings.

Do you have proof of this?

Sexual thoughts are something you arrive at yourself once you reach puberty

Do you have proof of THIS, either?

Incidentally, the beginnings of puberty start at between 6 and 7 years of age (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/9/4183) on average, when the adrenal cortext starts spitting out sex hormones.

Since you're too stupid to wrap your mind around such simple concepts as "rub squishy bits together," and think they're complex, I feel obligated to inform you that both six and seven are smaller numbers than "eight." Just so you know...

and then seek out.

Oh, so now every seven year old wants your cock?

As an adult you should realize that she can't gain anything from having a sexual experience

...except, maybe, vigorous orgasms and a nice warm cuddle afterwards.

Basically if she was to ask if you wanted to you should say no

Says who?

Oh. You. Nevermind, then.

realizing it's just a stupid thing a kid would say.

Your overwhelming respect for these peoples' thoughts and feelings is what impresses me about you.

Is it really appropriate to have sex with someone who at best has just recently developed the logical abilities to understand there is no santa claus?

Did you know that a vast majority of "adults" believe in invisible people in the sky?

You are implying it would be alright to have sexual interactions with a girl who just one week before

Really? They all learn this at precisely 7 years, 358 days? Or are you just making shit up?

Young children cannot reach orgasm

Congratulations!

http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/127293175-2/jorg=journal&source=&sp=966983&sid=0/N/78991/1.html?issn=0002-9378

You've discovered that LYING is your best hope at foisting bullshit!!! :D

and don't really understand what sex is about

I... still think it's you that can't wrap your mind around "rub the squishy bits together 'till it feels good."

she may be developing curiosity

Yeah. An older woman down the street was developing "curiosity" about me once, but I turned her down.

she will still be very ignorant having just learned what it is.

I want your link that proves that every single child learns about their sqiushy bits at the exact same time.

Oh, shit... we've already got that link. It seems the time is "in utero." So sorry. But lie some more, it's fucking funny.

You would be taking advantage of a young girls sexual desire for your own sexual pleasure.

...and the problem is?

I agree it's not as bad as rape or molestation, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate thing to do.

Heterosexuality is inappropriate. 'cause I said so. Everything else is appropriate.

You don't know how the girl will react to it...

...facial flushing, heavy breathing...

or how it could affect her when she's older and understand what actually happened.

Namely "I asked someone to lick me where I pee and they did."

Yeah. I'm not too worried for some reason.

Also think about the risk you would be taking

About none.

she could feel ashamed and tell her mother

Oh. Yeah. I'm sure THAT'S the common response to asking people to join you in parentally-disapproved activities, lol...

let them ride the lighting. they are sick people!

Don't worry nigga. We'll both die in the war.

in most cases the child would have grown interest in sex long before wanting to {engage in} it.

Isn't that sort of, umm... redundant by definition, dude?

one you sexually violate a child or anyone

Don't worry. I always ask permission.

you have forever screwed up their life.

Gee. I'm sure THAT'S a cheery thing to hear.

It's also not true; many people actually DON'T wander around doing the "permanent victim" kick, and people can recover from just about anything, whether they should have to or not.

But hey - maybe if you follow them around all day telling them they'll always be a failure, you can prevent that!! Won't you be proud?

ask most people in prions, a huge percentage were violated as children, look where it got them.

Ask Sean Connery (http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0054522/) if he ever had sexual relations before the age of consent. OMG PIMP OUT YOUR KIDZ TEHY WILL BECOMES RICH AND FAMOUS LOLOLOLOL!!1111!!one!!

i guess i'm not very open minded because i'm not a john wayne gacy sympathizer.

Adolph Hitler was known to have engaged in heterosexual sex. Just thought you'd like to know.

when they act on those feelings, they have the potential to ruin lives.

Did you know that most people who have experienced heterosexual date rape or homosexual prison rape found it an undesireable experience?

We must kill them. For the potential.

I don't know enough about children's sexual development to comment further in that area.

Now you admit you're just making stuff up?!?? What took you so long, and why didn't you quit beforehand.

I still think you shouldn't hang around kids

Hey - you're the one who respects them less than you do your dog, who you probably don't think is too stupid to successfully hump a chair leg...

About fucking time.

Yeah, sorry it took so long... thanks for holdin' it down, holmes...

I didn't know girllovers have a gang sign, that's dope.

:D We've got enough sign-based communication to trip out on a dance floor for hours, depending on what you want to say... just with the set-independent... god knows what militias have their own sign for internal use.

...but the simple 'declaration of identity' is pretty fucking useful, and funny... some bitch is mouthing off in line, one reaches forward to grab a candy bar from the display while, I dunno, scratching one's ribs or something minor... discrete, downlow, whatever...

...and you find out real quick if this "l33t gangsta pedo-trippin' banga" is, umm, fucking fake. Which, incidentally, they all are so far, but who knows...

...funny as shit. They're sooooo fucking hard, "if they ever found one they'd," but they never do shit to the guy in pink 'n blue whose hand says "GL"... lol.

...mostly because "those imaginary people on TV" are the "safe" way to look hard. It's what it's all about...

[Nero]

That's kind of like saying "Murderers shouldn't be imprisoned, because they have the same urge to kill as we have to have adult relations."

[Resign the King]

Yeah fair enough I was just basing that off my own development and what I've heard about puberty and sexual development, I will admit I haven't put any time into researching this or thinking about it in any depth and that was poor arguing on my part. However I still wouldn't want you guys anywhere near my cousins.

[JoePedo]

That's kind of like saying "Murderers shouldn't be imprisoned, because they have the same urge to kill as we have to have adult relations."

To the degree that murder feels really fucking good, relieves stress, is completely mutual, and doesn't, like, cause immediate death or anything, I'd say you're right!

Of course, if your opinion of sexual activity is more negative than the above - say, like most people's opinions of murder - you can actually make sure it never happens to you by removing your genitals with a pair of garden shears. Then you'll be safe from your girlfriend or boyfriend ever stimulating them! Better still, you can show your pride and encourage other antisexual people by posting pics or videos for all to share!

See? It's easy! You can do it too!!

Yeah fair enough I was just basing that off my own development and what I've heard about puberty and sexual development.

That's cool. Mad props for 'fessing, serious.

I will admit I haven't put any time into researching this or thinking about it in any depth and that was poor arguing on my part.

If you're actually interested in further study, two possible sources for learning about the topic of developmental sexuality are parenting sites and women's sexuality sites. The former has a shitload of "omg my child is touching myself is that normal" questions every few seconds, and the latter is - blessedly, imo - seriously devoted to forming a more diverse, nuanced, and realistic view of female sexual experience based on, well, real people's experiences and peer-to-peer sharing...

...the-clitoris.com has a pretty decent archive - one of the lulziest of which, incidentally, was a consensual "child molestation" of a Gaia online member when she was about six years old by an early-adolescent female friend.

Then again? Maybe it's only funny if one is familiar with the "gb2gaia" meme, lol.

Still, I give feminism and women's sexuality sites props for integrating the good, the bad, the ugly, the wierd, and the dead-neutral without prejudice or censorship... they're sort of like erowid for the clit.

However I still wouldn't want you guys anywhere near my cousins.

That's cool. I live my life in-tribe anyway, mostly.

The really funny thing is, since we're an integrative and non-heirarchical peer-based community, "teh pedofilia" is handled pretty much identically to what would happen if I started sexing up the dog... (okay, maybe that's only amusing if you're familiar with it - by "non-heirarchical integrative community," I mean, among other things, that the dog actually gets consulted in group decisions)...

If I started chasing the dog around while it was trying to get away, people would be pissed at me... but if I'm sunbathing by the window or something and the dog walks up and started licking my nutsack... no one would really care.

...in-tribe, anyways. We don't deal with outlanders much except for occasional trade and cultural congress... 'n that's cool.

So, don't worry. Your cousins will be fine unless they run off to live with the hippies. By which time they're probably adults anyway.

[Resign the King]

That's cool. Mad props for 'fessing, serious.


If you're actually interested in further study, two possible sources for learning about the topic of developmental sexuality are parenting sites and women's sexuality sites. The former has a shitload of "omg my child is touching myself is that normal" questions every few seconds, and the latter is - blessedly, imo - seriously devoted to forming a more diverse, nuanced, and realistic view of female sexual experience based on, well, real people's experiences and peer-to-peer sharing...

...the-clitoris.com has a pretty decent archive - one of the lulziest of which, incidentally, was a consensual "child molestation" of a Gaia online member when she was about six years old by an early-adolescent female friend.

Then again? Maybe it's only funny if one is familiar with the "gb2gaia" meme, lol.

Still, I give feminism and women's sexuality sites props for integrating the good, the bad, the ugly, the wierd, and the dead-neutral without prejudice or censorship... they're sort of like erowid for the clit.



That's cool. I live my life in-tribe anyway, mostly.

The really funny thing is, since we're an integrative and non-heirarchical peer-based community, "teh pedofilia" is handled pretty much identically to what would happen if I started sexing up the dog... (okay, maybe that's only amusing if you're familiar with it - by "non-heirarchical integrative community," I mean, among other things, that the dog actually gets consulted in group decisions)...

If I started chasing the dog around while it was trying to get away, people would be pissed at me... but if I'm sunbathing by the window or something and the dog walks up and started licking my nutsack... no one would really care.

...in-tribe, anyways. We don't deal with outlanders much except for occasional trade and cultural congress... 'n that's cool.

So, don't worry. Your cousins will be fine unless they run off to live with the hippies. By which time they're probably adults anyway.

I probably will research it more, this has got me thinking about why I think it would be wrong and if it actually is wrong. I guess that's why I argued it, just because I've always assumed it's wrong all around but never thought a lot of why. What I meant when I said that children couldn't understand sex was that they didn't have sexual fantasies, which I've always assumed to arrive with puberty but I don't know for sure if that is the case, also how important fantasies are to sex in general. I still think it would be wrong for an adult to have even consensual sex with an eight year old, but I guess when I ask myself why I don't have a great answer, so that means I should research and think about it a bit.

Sounds like you live on a commune, what's the deal with that, hows it work?

[Star Wars Fan]

I didn't know girllovers have a gang sign, that's dope. :thumbsup:

that's not a girllover symbol. Though you weren't aware girl/boylovers had symbols?
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/FBI_pedophile_symbols
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FBI_document_reviews_symbols_used_by_pedophiles

lol

[Proots]

And you are?

Let's discuss where you decided it's worthwile to plunge the world into nuclear war because shit you saw on your televison set was just really, really fuckin' emo, m'kay??

I....um.....wh...what?? :confused:




Holy shit you're uneducated. You really don't know what those words mean?

The colloquial expression is "old enough to bleed," and is measured by the shedding of uterine lining and the elution of ovum for fertilization. Not surprisingly, "ovulating" and "capable of reproduction" are pretty much synonyms, and it's REEEAAALY not hard to judge whether someone woke up in a pool of menstural blood, dude. Pretty fucking obvious, in fact, and you can't miss it.

Did you NOT pay attention in health class?



Yeah, and you just threw a giant tantrum because not EVERYBODY was hating WITH you.


Wow. You're kind of an irritable prick, aren't you? Let me tell you something. I'm NOT one of those internet tough guys, who's trying to force my opinion down anyone's throat. My opinion wasn't set in stone when I came into this thread.

Let me make this clear - apparently you didn't understand, or apparently I worded the question incorrectly (english is not my first language). My questions aren't asked TO DECONSTRUCT! They're ASKED so I can LEARN SOMETHING! I wouldn't be taking part in this conversation if I didn't want to SEE THINGS ANOTHER WAY!

And I "threw a tantrum" because not "everyone was hating with me" ? I don't even know what that means, so I'm not going to comment on it.

In retrospect I suppose I did word the "physical maturity question" way, way, way off. It's frustrating online - especially if I typed something - when in my head I meant it to come off one way - but it came down completely different. (It happens frequently. Speaking face to face with someone is easier for me)

I just snapped at Mutinous Butcher not because I have anything against him - but because one of my pet peeves is when during an argument - someone states their point of view and someone else responds with "Lol! Didn't you read!" or "Precisely!". Stupid. Quit stroking each other. You took it that I had a "tantrum" - which, I can't blame you, beings the words are taken how you want to take them - but I assure you, that's not the case. It was more sarcasm/joking....I mean, wasn't that obvious? Why would I have such a harsh response to something so mundane and mediocre in real life, let alone online?

[Ron_Smythberg]

Well I can't say Im surprised JFLC endorses (and most likely engages in) pedophilia.

DerDrache: Do you honestly believe pedophiles should be accepted in society? Would you be alright with letting the man who violated your daughter walking the streets to strike again?

I understand how you are approaching this issue, but you must understand that any criminal can be looked at in this fashion. It is likely that objectively every single criminal is really just mentally ill in some way. Unfortunately in order for us to have the best possible population for the most amount of people it is essential that we make it known that pedophilia will in no shape or form be tolerated.

I'd like to state also that I am sick of people comparing pedophiles to Hebrews during the holocaust. There is NO COMPARISON. Pedophiles are sick, degenerate and ruin the lives of countless children. They taint the lives of our next generation. They are not innocent victims.

[Dog]

DerDrache: Do you honestly believe pedophiles should be accepted in society? Would you be alright with letting the man who violated your daughter walking the streets to strike again?

I said nothing of the sort. I said that they should not be demonized as "sick, degenerate scum", as they have as little control over their urges as we have over ours. There are better ways to tackle the situation than just throwing them in jail.

This applies to all criminals, insofar as people should generally try to think more in terms of rehabilitation instead of just punishment.

Of course, it's vital to consider what damage that an individual has done. If a guy has killed a bunch of people, or a pedophile has violently hurt a bunch of kids, then perhaps it would be best to just do away with the perpetrator, instead of devoting resources to help him. HOWEVER, not every pedophile is violent in nature, and if there are ways to stop his problem without treating him like scum, I think it should be considered.

[Ron_Smythberg]

I said nothing of the sort. I said that they should not be demonized as "sick, degenerate scum", as they have as little control over their urges as we have over ours. There are better ways to tackle the situation than just throwing them in jail.

This applies to all criminals, insofar as people should generally try to think more in terms of rehabilitation instead of just punishment.

Of course, it's vital to consider what damage that an individual has done. If a guy has killed a bunch of people, or a pedophile has violently hurt a bunch of kids, then perhaps it would be best to just do away with the perpetrator, instead of devoting resources to help him. HOWEVER, not every pedophile is violent in nature, and if there are ways to stop his problem without treating him like scum, I think it should be considered.

So by your logic adults who rape eachother should not be punished either right? Because it is an urge?

Lets face it, everything that one does is a result of some urge or drive.

If the demonizing of pedophilia ends and pedophiles no longer feel as shunned by society, couldn't you see the disastrous results of that. If we make pedophilia socially acceptable, they will no longer be much of an inclination not to engage in those crimes.

The fact is, pedophilia is a crime because of it's effect on the victim. Survivors of child abuse are some of the most mentally damaged people who walk the earth. Is the momentary pleasure of some sick deranged man worth this kind of destruction..

[Dog]

So by your logic adults who rape eachother should not be punished either right? Because it is an urge?

Again, I didn't say that. The only point I've made is that pedophiles should not be villainized for the sole fact that they are pedophiles. When they commit crimes, then the issue becomes more complicated, but in general I do think rehabilitation is more important than punishment. If rehabilitation does not work or is too resource-consuming, then a form of instituionalization would be necessary. The point is: It makes no sense to punish someone for something they can't help. If you toss some pedophile offender in jail for 10 years, he'll still be driven by his urges when he's released. It's a medieval, silly response to the problem.


The fact is, pedophilia is a crime because of it's effect on the victim. Survivors of child abuse are some of the most mentally damaged people who walk the earth.

Just because your arguments come from a place of what most would consider "good", that doesn't give you a pass to spew bullshit like JFLC. You don't need to make some absurd, unsubstantiated, and untrue statement about pedophilia victims to make a point that it is "bad". By that I mean, if your judgement that pedophilic acts are bad relies on facts about how harmful it is, then all someone has to do is show that pedophilia victims can go on to lead normal, healthy, untraumatized lives.

[Ron_Smythberg]

Again, I didn't say that. The only point I've made is that pedophiles should not be villainized for the sole fact that they are pedophiles. When they commit crimes, then the issue becomes more complicated, but in general I do think rehabilitation is more important than punishment. If rehabilitation does not work or is too resource-consuming, then a form of instituionalization would be necessary. The point is: It makes no sense to punish someone for something they can't help. If you toss some pedophile offender in jail for 10 years, he'll still be driven by his urges when he's released. It's a medieval, silly response to the problem.


They should be punished. If they were not punished then there wouldn't be much of an effective deterrent in place against them would there..?

It is not a crime to have sexual thoughts about children. If someone chronically has these thoughts then therapy is an option. I guess it's unfortunate that these people are stuck with an urge they cannot satisfy, but there are people who live with far heavier burdens.


Just because your arguments come from a place of what most would consider "good", that doesn't give you a pass to spew bullshit like JFLC. You don't need to make some absurd, unsubstantiated, and untrue statement about pedophilia victims to make a point that it is "bad". By that I mean, if your judgement that pedophilic acts are bad relies on facts about how harmful it is, then all someone has to do is show that pedophilia victims can go on to lead normal, healthy, untraumatized lives.

Child abuse is a type of assault. It is violating someone's boundaries. I think common sense and the kind of understanding you get from living in the outside world would indicate that the majority of people do not respond well to assault, especially children who lack many of an adult's defenses and have very fragile states of mind.




You make an interesting point, although I think demonizing and punishing pedophiles is acceptable. It isn't some harmless societal taboo, it is flat out wrong and terrible.

[JustAnotherAsshole]

(LONG POST)

Alright, now I see why the laws may be fucked up, and why government and law enforcement may have other motives to jail accused pedophiles. Thanks for correcting me.

But when I entered this thread, I didn't think it was about the laws.

The message I picked up from the OP was that this was about how society views pedophiles, and the unfair stigmas that are directed towards them, just for having feelings that the rest of us find distasteful.

Again, I don't view people with these feelings as sick, but I do think that they shouldn't act on them because they can (Sure, maybe not ALWAYS) hurt children.

I'm not commenting on laws, policies, etc, etc. Just that I think people who want to fuck kids should refrain from doing so.

[Star Wars Fan]

Survivors of child abuse are some of the most mentally damaged people who walk the earth. Is the momentary pleasure of some sick deranged man worth this kind of destruction..

do you have a source?

[hooloovoo]

do you have a source?

Really, just check google scholar or proquest or the ajp archives. There are hundreds of accredited sources about the long-term effects of sexual child abuse.

I'm surprised, considering your interest in the subject, you wouldn't be aware of at least some of them.

[JoePedo]

So by your logic adults who rape eachother should not be punished either right? Because it is an urge?

lol non sequiteur...

If the demonizing of pedophilia ends and pedophiles no longer feel as shunned by society, couldn't you see the disastrous results of that.

Actually, yes. If these people actually had shit to lose, they might actually consider not getting laid, as opposed to the "damned if you do/damned if you don't" of the current situation.

Since this prevents the mass clogging and collapse of the prison system in a fashion similar to its collapse under the similarly-unjust drug war, this 'false tolerance' is undesireable.

I'd like to state also that I am sick of people comparing pedophiles to Hebrews during the holocaust. There is NO COMPARISON.

...except, y'know, the fixed sign recognizeable at a distance, the construction of camps for the concentration and liquidation based solely on actual or percieved status, that sort of thing...

...funny thing; one of the main people I've worked with politically lost her whole family at Auschwitz. Apparently, it's a little disturbing to have to fight the same shit all over again...

Pedophiles are sick, degenerate and ruin the lives of countless children.

So, how about the children you kill to use their blood in their passover rites?

After all, if it was printed in a newspaper, it must be true - right?

And I "threw a tantrum" because not "everyone was hating with me" ? I don't even know what that means...

Well...

If you're actually okay with____ you're FUCKED UP.

...is the construction with the arbitrary variables removed. ;)

Let me make this clear - apparently you didn't understand, or apparently I worded the question incorrectly (english is not my first language). My questions aren't asked TO DECONSTRUCT! They're ASKED so I can LEARN SOMETHING! I wouldn't be taking part in this conversation if I didn't want to SEE THINGS ANOTHER WAY!

Hey... that's kinda cool!

Wow. You're kind of an irritable prick, aren't you?

:D Yup.

It's a lot safer.

I....um.....wh...what??

Did you really think a technologocially-advanced people would sit back, watch their own genocide, and do nothing?

that's not a girllover symbol.

What do the letters say in plain english? ;)

I probably will research it more, this has got me thinking about why I think it would be wrong...

If I may be so bold and rude as to propose a hypotheosis... probably at least in part because a lot of money has gone into trying to make you believe that...

Classic conditioning (http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~lynda_abbott/Behavioral1.html) of emotional response relies on pairing the target with a completely-unrelated stimulus - which is one of the reasons why racial supremacists tend to whine about wanting the media to mention non-white race more (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aamren.com+mention+race&meta=) in connection with - and only in connection with - violent crime, despite the fact that the media is already slanted to incite racial hatred (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/2/7/9/p182792_index.html).

Similarly, when the only time you've ever heard the word pedophile is when your TV slathers it all over some horrific tale (http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/06/ng.01.html) of a cute loli (bound to stir warm feelings of the latent pedophilia in the viewing audience, amirite?) getting chopped to bits and stuffed in a garbage bag - well, how is that not going to fuck with someone's emotional response to the word (which behavioralists call the "conditioned stimulus" - (really really cute) chopped-up kids being the "unconditioned stimulus" with which it is paired)...

And your TV is perfectly happy to associate the word "pedophile" with whatever it thinks you'll hate, despite the fact that only a small percentage (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm#note66) of reported adult-child sexual interaction actually involves pedophiles - about half (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2952575) the per-capita freqency, incidentally - and despite the fact that sadistic assailants are actually known to not be pedophiles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#History_of_the_term)

(to be fair, we don't know whether nonpedophiles actually are twice as likely to have sex with a kid, or whether the reporting's just screwed up by the fact that people who get drunk and rape the first thing they can find tend to piss people off, possibly increasing reporting. dunno. Still, half the per-capita rate in cases which make it to the attention of the legal system...)

Conversely... count the number of times you've seen a media blitz with the headline "pedophile rescues dog." I'm guessing the number will come out to be "zero," though I could be wrong.

I'm guessing that whether you'd be for it, against it, neutral or otherwise without it, I'd imagine that having only ever heard the word "pedophile" in conjunction with "hacked-up cute loli" is, well... bound to fuck shit up...

What I meant when I said that children couldn't understand sex was that they didn't have sexual fantasies, which I've always assumed to arrive with puberty but I don't know for sure if that is the case

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PSC.057.0327A

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ099171&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ099171

also how important fantasies are to sex in general.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=9GpBB61LV14C&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=orgasm+%22without+fantasy%22&source=bl&ots=yBsMre1pAO&sig=O-4LRiv7zIG7geRMreoSn2iaZZ4&hl=en&ei=rOvGSZWIKpGJsAaf-PTtCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

http://www.jackinworld.com/qow/q246.html

I still think it would be wrong for an adult to have even consensual sex with an eight year old, but I guess when I ask myself why I don't have a great answer

~nods~

Sounds like you live on a commune, what's the deal with that, hows it work?

:D A handful of communes and a few isolated strongholds, in fact. It's pretty cool, and I definately advise investing in a little rural property for anyone who wants to live a life based on compassion and kindness.

'cause when you dance naked around a bonfire all high on peyote in the suburbs, the neighbors sometimes get a tad bitchy. ;)

As for how it works, the culture has two general rules-of-wrist (thank you, boondock saints)...

1. Open discussion is preferable to conflict, and...

2. Everyone's feelings and perspectives are coequally valid.

;) Including the dog.

We... pretty much chucked every other taboo and boundary out the window. Ya sort of have to, for this life - screaming at someone for discussing "umentionable" topics is pretty much discouraged by the whole "open discussion" bit, and throwing in things like "you're a nigger, stfu" or "you're just a kid, you don't get an opinion" is pretty much shot down by the fact that open discussion occurs from a position of equal respect...

Here's a dosing report (http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=38062) from a group of three people who are living by about the same philosophy of nonjudgementalism, completely open discourse, and mutual love... 'n yes, the diversity (religious, orientational and more) in that group is fairly common and standard, lol...

Umm... here. Have some random junk...

http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/
http://www.sudval.org/
http://www.sands-school.co.uk/Home.html
http://albanyfreeschool.com/
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/
http://www.miskinmeadows.com/
http://www.edmcommunitygardens.org/
http://vancouver.ca/parks/parks/comgardn.htm
http://www.east-end-food.coop/
http://www.karmacoop.org/
http://www.wincofoods.com/
http://www.breitenbush.com/
http://www.earthdance.net/
http://www.s-c-g.org/
http://www.thecowgoddess.com/

....aaaaaand, just for the fuck of it - some information about the effects of the coercive-heirarchical model of interpersonal interaction...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000512082935.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/uic.htm

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RbpT9Ln5WZMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=corporal+punishment+crime+violence&source=bl&ots=ruM8zsHQ9w&sig=OEydNDAYnupfAu7q_Z7UfdcoLkQ&hl=en&ei=KgbHSamGB4S2jAexuZWeCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

....aaaaand... some additional reading for shits and giggles...

http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/1.php

...just about anything there would qualify as "home territory" for us, or rather close to it - though brightenbush, while being more clothing-optional than most of the food coops, which is good, is way too sXe and has a problem with dogs, which is sort of unfair and discriminatory to our zooerotic members... but still, grabbing a bunch of quick reads should let you start to get an idea of what it's like on the inside, when you mix them all together and realize that, well, we have far less boundaries, anxieties, and taboos than even most of these people, lol... should give a decent overview. Waste enough hours reading and you'll even feel like you're there. ;)

[Captain Politik]

So? We have a lot of fucking stupid and amoral laws on the books. In this case, the dictionary and legal definitions of rape and molestation have nothing to do with each other. Stop trying to pass one off as they other.

And how some fathers out there feel about their 12 year old daughters fucking 20 year olds is of little consequence. Some father's wouldn't want their child to have sex with a negro either but I think we can both agree that's fucking stupid.

how is not wanting your daughter with teh worst race of humans on earth stupid?

If they have a kid it will take no genes from your daughter and be a sick nigger child

[JoePedo]

But when I entered this thread, I didn't think it was about the laws.

Well... that's a long and complicated story. ;) Short version is that every thread will fragment and go in a thousand directions...

OP's post is very much about not changing the laws. On the other hand, discussions of harm caused by unethical "therapy" techniques are somewhat law-oriented, because government intervention is sort of required for the state to, well, coerce and order people to become paying clients - which brings up the whole corruption and kickbacks by which the profiteering works...

So... it depends on what tangent you're on at the moment. ;) But you're right, the OP's post didn't advocate any legal change whatsoever.

Really, just check google scholar or proquest or the ajp archives. There are hundreds of accredited sources about the long-term effects of sexual child abuse.

...but can you find any without bitchin' sampling flaws that still come to the conclusion you want them to say?

'cause I'll give you a pro tip - "of a community of 197 women seeking psychatric care for unwanted childhood sexual experiences" isn't exactly the most, umm... legitimate... sample source for either psychiatric outcomes in unwanted sexual experience, or any outcomes in desired experience.

Just so you know. But hey. There's always NIDA.

Child abuse is a type of assault.

That's my definition of abusive behavior towards others, as well.

Nonetheless, "assault" is still drastically and completely off-topic, just as "date rape" is completely inaccurate in a description of normative heterosexuality, and as "mass murder" (a la shipman) is pretty fucking irrelevant to judaic people in general.

Please try not to post such randomly off-topic bullshit. Thanks.

I think demonizing and punishing pedophiles is acceptable.

:thumbsup:

I'm sure "punishing" people for not getting laid will certainly encourage the "have-not" caste to follow your strange "abstinence-only" program.

I mean, if they didn't, they might get treated... exactly the same! :D Truly, your wisdom is great!

[Knight of Blackness]

You should've dude. Was PURE WIN. But yeah some parts were REAL sad, like Lucy Killing Kouta's Dad and little sister :(

I believe that was still Keade. She might have been fucked in brain enough already though.

On topic: Against child molesters. Sure, if you like kids, that's fine and all but don't get any sexual thoughts in that process.

[Proots]

Did you really think a technologocially-advanced people would sit back, watch their own genocide, and do nothing?

I....I've been able to follow you rather well - so far. But, with this, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Fill me in, please?:confused:

[JoePedo]

I....I've been able to follow you rather well - so far. But, with this, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Fill me in, please?:confused:

Sure...

1 :

We have ample scientists (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/forumdisplay.php?f=51) among our community.

2 :

Some people were not only trying to push us around (which is reason enough) but are actively trying to kill us.

So... tell me. If you had a shitload of eminently weaponizeable tech at your disposal and someone tried to kill you... wtf would you do??

[hooloovoo]

...but can you find any without bitchin' sampling flaws that still come to the conclusion you want them to say?

'cause I'll give you a pro tip - "of a community of 197 women seeking psychatric care for unwanted childhood sexual experiences" isn't exactly the most, umm... legitimate... sample source for either psychiatric outcomes in unwanted sexual experience, or any outcomes in desired experience.

Just so you know. But hey. There's always NIDA.

What I want them to say? You might find it hard to believe, but I neither had to participate in the research for said studies or cherry pick among them for my desired response- they all have the same conclusion regardless of what you may deem is my personal hoped for outcome while sitting at my computer.

And hey, on the flip side of that coin- not every study that points to an inconvenient conclusion for you is as stupidly conducted as you would like them to be. They don't pull from women patients in offices of their colleagues- many of them are based on testing of specified age-groups of children, or conclusions are drawn in reverse by noting the statistic of sexual child-abuse amongst young women referred into care for an separate psychological issue.


Just so you knooowww....

Tell me, if there are scientists among the pedo community searching for research to point to the opposite conclusion, how are they gathering more reliable, unbiased samples? Cuz asking four year old Betty how she feels afterwards doesn't really hold up to peer review... even if her preschool vocabulary extends further than "woof."

[Ron_Smythberg]

It sounds to me like "ImJoePedo" is desperately looking for some kind of moral justification for his sick urges.

[Zay]

It sounds to me like "ImJoePedo" is desperately looking for some kind of moral justification for his sick urges.

It sounds to me like you should shut the fuck up. There is no good and evil, or god and temptation through satan. All there is in the world is matter, energy, and causality. I want to know what pedophiles think, how they think, and why they think it. As soon as you mystify/demonize something, you've refused to understand it and draw irrational conclusions. If you can't handle free speech, go somewhere else.

[Knight of Blackness]

It sounds to me like you should shut the fuck up. There is no good and evil, or god and temptation through satan. All there is in the world is matter, energy, and causality. I want to know what pedophiles think, how they think, and why they think it. As soon as you mystify/demonize something, you've refused to understand it and draw irrational conclusions. If you can't handle free speech, go somewhere else.

Freedom is something that is deserved. Those who seek to abuse the weakest of our society, deserve nothing. You want causality?

Human beings want to survive and reproduce, like all animals.
Human beings will protect their offspring, like all animals.
Therefor, Pedophiles are the enemies of the offspring of Human beings.
Therefor fighting pedophiles is what Human beings must do as animals.

[Struwwelpeter]

^LOL

[NeoPhoenix]

So what if they are sexually mature, but have a mental handicap and cannot comprehend what they are doing. What if it's someone with the body of a 20 year old and the mind of a five year old. They're sexually mature, aren't they?

Point, mental age needs to be taken into effect too. Lines getting mighty blurry.

[JoePedo]

I neither had to... cherry pick among them for my desired response- they all have the same conclusion

Lolwut?!?!?! lol...

Okay... in addition to the billion other improbabilities and impossibilities in that, no science has a "conclusion." It has (a) data and (b) hypotheosis.

lol...

And hey, on the flip side of that coin- not every study that points to an inconvenient conclusion for you is as stupidly conducted as you would like

ORLY? lol...

Dare you to find one that even pulls off variable isolation, lol. I can think of two. You, otoh, good luck - especially with your demonstrated gross scientific illiteracy.

They don't pull from women patients in offices of their colleagues

So, 'Effects of sexual and physical abuse: A comparison of adolescent inpatients' (Child Psychiatry and Human Development 1989)... was not a comparison of adolescent... inpatients??

OMGNOWAI!!

many of them are based on testing of specified age-groups of children

ORLY?

So, you're saying people just walk up to a handful of five year olds at the pokemon convention and ask them whether they rate their uncle touching their peepee was positive, negative, or neutral in their estimate of life effect?

Can you...

1) Find me this lulzy study, and...

2) Tell me how they avoided getting arrested, exactly?

...because I haven't laughed this hard in a long time...

or conclusions are drawn in reverse by noting the statistic of sexual child-abuse amongst young women referred into care for an separate psychological issue.

lol... Here... let me do the full quote on that one...

not every study that points to an inconvenient conclusion for you is as stupidly conducted as you would like... or conclusions are drawn in reverse by noting the statistic of sexual child-abuse amongst young women referred into care for an separate psychological issue.

Thanks for that. :D

Tell me, if there are scientists among the pedo community searching for research to point to the opposite conclusion

Umm... wtf drugs of abuse leads your imagination to create these lulzy fantasies, and wherethefuck did you make this up from???

how are they gathering more reliable, unbiased samples?

Well, it's your own damn fiction that came from fucking nowhere - but since you're taking an interest in correcting your generalized scientific illiteracy, the major points are randomization of sample selection, isolation of seperate variables, and, of course, the disequivocation between correlatory and causatory stimuli.

The studies in bulk on your subtopic tend to fuck up hard on the second one - though you've provided many lulzy samples in the hypothetical of fucking up on the first.

Readers like you tend to fuck up on the third one, waving around studies without findings. It's funny.

Cuz asking four year old Betty how she feels afterwards doesn't really hold up to peer review...

Actually... umm... yes it does.

It still has nothing to do with anything, because no one in this thread is yet sure where the fuck you pulled this imaginary tangent from, but it does just so happen that "self-report of subjective matter X in population Y" is "self-report of subjective matter X in population Y." Attempting to equivocate to matters not studied (such as monoamine oxidase activity in the lateral genticulate nucleus) wouldn't pass peer review, but the study as you phrased it, within its limited scope, actually would.

It sounds to me like "ImJoePedo" is desperately looking for some kind of moral justification for his superior orientation.

Yees. I'm sure that the behaviorally-independent nature of aversive conditioning just automatically relates to that.

Of course, there's no use looking for what one already has, but... hey. You can ignore that.

I want to know what pedophiles think

On the topic at hand...

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/images/fig5-2.gif

"Start paying attention to the man behind the curtain" comes to mind.

http://www.vachss.com/av_articles/willametteweek2.html

Y'all as a people have been, errm... "missing" a few shenanigans while chasing, well... Satan and Internets instead. "A few" meaning "the whole damn topic."

Freedom is something that is deserved.

...by virtue of existing, yes, that's the definition of "human rights and freedoms." Congratulations!!

Human beings will protect their offspring, like all animals.

Say, what's your views on corporal punishment?

Lines getting mighty blurry.

The notion of lines, much like Zok's promise of UserCP, is a lie...

/waits for the more mentally-competent trolls and posters to show up...

[Zay]

Hey jo, I'm already well aware that child abuse begins at home. Hell, that chart understates it, because corporal discipline and psychological torment is even more prevalent. Anti-pedo-mania is the culmination of thousands of years of this:
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/03/23/the-history-of-child-abuse/

Children have gone from being the most abused class in history to being the most protected one now.

[Centipede2]

Hey JP, you see Watchmen?

It had:

- plot based around imminent nuking of world
- view of humans as cockroaches/cancer
- referenced unknown leftover soviet nukes (something like that, I think)
- "smartest man in world" basically "nuking" many major cities because that was his solution - that would bring peace to the rest of the world - uniting everyone under a common hate of the blue guy
- blue guy debates about the cancerous/savage human nature and finds meaning/love in human race based one girl who came from a dark family background
- A shift from fear to love - very dark and finally at the end the newscasters don't have anything to report because the world is full of love "like a hippie commune"
- Girl after having the whole shift accepts her mother and talks with her
- Many other things with the general message/view

Call it bizarre but it actually kinda reminded me of your posts. Just thought you'd find it interesting. My summary points are actually really bad because I'm not that good at summarizing and I'm kind of tired right now, but yeah I thought you'd like to know that at least there is someone out there with a similar message to yours. Maybe not, and I'm just crazy but if I'd recommend a movie to a random person on the internet, you're the person and that's the movie. :)

[Akagi]

You know, "pedophilia" has largely become a recent cultural taboo in modern times. It used to be that getting married by 12 or 13 was not only viewed as normal, but expected and arranged.

Not that I'm defending it or anything, just sayin'.

[i poop in your cereal]

I would love to see a face-off between JoethePedo and Greyfox about pedophilia. That would be really, really interesting.

If by interesting you mean absolute, total, godlike no-contest domination by joe, then yes, it would be interesting. Very interesting.

[i poop in your cereal]

Pedos, by definition, are criminals, and very harmful ones at that.

Finding someone under the age of consent sexually attractive is criminal?

[JoePedo]

It had:

Holy crap!!

I'd skipped it thus far because I'd figured (sorta like matrix1, which was a great explanation of society (I could go off for hours), but never managed the questions of philosophy people kept ascribing to it)... well... I'd thought it was overhyped...

I was wrong. Th.. thanks!!! :D

Most of my 'few handpicked movies' prior to your turning me on to that are either about a children's-rights culture (Monsters Inc/Finding Nemo/The Last Mimsy/etc).... or are just really depressing social analysis (Lawn Dogs (economic class analysis), Boys Don't Cry (transgender issues, complete with murder), etc...

:) There's some hidden gems in there. I'd strongly reccomend Monsters, Inc. ;) But, uhh... mostly... thanks for turning me on, dude, seriously!! +rep!

http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index...f-child-abuse/

Holy crap, thank you. I read that years ago, was strongly influenced by the notion of "child as poison container" as explanation for much of the problems in our society, and... promptly lost it...

...site looks interesting, too. Thanks!

Anti-pedo-mania is the culmination of... being the most protected one now.

I'd honestly beg to differ, unless you mean as a backlash against it. Did you read the second link? All those laws were passed after 1980, when the "be nice to children" of the hippies and the whole "domestic and intrafamilial violence against children, women and youth" of the feminists got crushed under the "satanic panic." Here's a little background of the history behind the progressive decriminalization of intrafamilial rape, from the first in 1981 to its zenith of 44 out of 50 states by 1996.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/25/opinion/oe-stevens25

...and a fascinating article from the UC Davis law review; pages 1877-8 are particularly interesting for some history...

http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol39/Issue5/DavisVol39No5_Andrew.PDF

Now, what are some of the characteristics of the mythic "pedophile?"

- She or he is always outside the home.

- She or he specializes in abduction, either partial (underground satanic facilities at day cares) or total (the "stranger abduction" myth).

- In all cases, the parent is the victim in the situation - "their" child has been taken.

- She or he has the power to damage the child's "soul" with a glance ('the evil pedo eye,' lol), whether in person (the McClellan paranoia) or over at a distance (the "voodoo molestation" simple-posession CP discourse).

- She or he reproduces by magical contagion - much as vampires can spread their powers and their 'evil' through drinking the blood of their victims, so too does the 'pedophile' manage to "turn" people pedo with a touch - transferring and spreading their 'dark powers' with it.

- She or he can rape people over TCP/IP.

...and, the associated memes about violence against children...

- All child abuse is sex.

- Anything which is not sex is not child abuse.

- Being hit is pleasureable (or "for their own good"). Nonabusive, volitional sexual activity is always unpleasureable.

- Children should never have their input or opinions respected. (actually, I have no idea if anyone propogates this myth in regards to neglect, but it's an integral part of the myths on all other forms of child abuse and violence against children).

...beginning to see the suggestion that "omg pedophiles?" is starting to look more like a reaction against the concern for children's welfare than a movement for it? Kraft-Ebbing had the sense to use the term "pedophilia erotica" (literally, "the sexual and emotional affinity towards children") - but at the start of the hysteria-drives, it was chaned to "pedophilia" - literally, the philanthropic regard for children's issues.

Just to give a remedial contrast, let's pair some of the 'pedo mythos' against known facts...

- She or he is always outside the home.

She or he is almost always the child's parent. In the remaining cases, she or he is almost always a close family member facilitated by the parent.

- She or he specializes in abduction, either partial (underground satanic facilities at day cares) or total (the "stranger abduction" myth).

Roughly 80 to 90 percent of runaways are fleeing violence in the home. Returning missing children to the abuse they left is not a kindness.

- In all cases, the parent is the victim in the situation - "their" child has been taken.

In close to all cases, the parent is the perpetrator. While sympathy for the parent may be legitimate from a trancendent-restorative perspective, in any interpretive system which incorporates blame, the parent is to blame.

- She or he has the power to damage the child's "soul" with a glance ('the evil pedo eye,' lol), whether in person (the McClellan paranoia) or over at a distance (the "voodoo molestation" simple-posession CP discourse).

Being incarcerated with state enforcement in close quarters with a person perpetrating violence is harmful. Being "overlooked by faeries," no matter what folk tales say, is perfectly harmless.

- She or he reproduces by magical contagion - much as vampires can spread their powers and their 'evil' through drinking the blood of their victims, so too does the 'pedophile' manage to "turn" people pedo with a touch - transferring and spreading their 'dark powers' with it.

The "orientational seduction" model - oddly enough attributed to multiple victims of heterosupremacist violence (and scapegoating 'queer outsiders' for intrafamilial violence is the ultimate form of heterosupremacist violence) - has been debunked in virtually every case where it has been subjected to empirical testing.

- She or he can rape people over TCP/IP.

I wish I had this magic power, seriously. It might become the one and only case where I would literally trade my ethics for lulz.

If you'd like to read other people's views on the (admittedly, less radicalized) analog, I'd be happy to direct you to the collaboration between Prevent Child Abuse America and the Frameworks institute on some of the problems the mythology of the "outside other" has introduced into the trouble of acidentally adressing the problem...

http://www.preventchildabuse.org/about_us/reframing/documents.shtml
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/childabuse.html

...but returning more tightly to the question of whether "the pedo hysteria" is a byproduct of or a reaction against the effort to prevent violence against children and youth, I'd like to make one last point : the anti-pedo crusades of media panic, and the progressive reactionarism and draconianism of the ensuing laws occurred at the same time as, and on a 1:1 correlation with, the advancement of the intrafamilial sex offenders' lobby's agenda.

Take a look at the "pedo myth versus reality of abuse" again - especially its focus on the "poor parent" and "far away from home" - and tell me if that's coincidence.

:)

Thanks for the link, btw. :)

[Zay]

As always, the state engineers moral panic to increase tax revenue and decrease liberty. Great read, btw.

Pedophiles are the 2-minute hate from 1984. Nobody would oppose a bill to protect children! No rational adult that has watched dateline NBC! Think of the children!

[Star Wars Fan]

Hey jo, I'm already well aware that child abuse begins at home. Hell, that chart understates it, because corporal discipline and psychological torment is even more prevalent. Anti-pedo-mania is the culmination of thousands of years of this:
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/03/23/the-history-of-child-abuse/

Children have gone from being the most abused class in history to being the most protected one now.

related link
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html

[SKUV]

that's not a girllover symbol. Though you weren't aware girl/boylovers had symbols?
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/FBI_pedophile_symbols
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/FBI_document_reviews_symbols_used_by_pedophiles

lol

I think I know my own peoples work when I see it. :p



And yeah, I knew about those symbols for a while

[Space Monkey]

The fact of the matter is that children are physiologically prepared to have sex at the age of twelve. Most girls at the age of twelve are already thinking about sex and dressing at least somewhat promiscuously, that's observable by taking a trip to any public school. If children were not psychologically prepared to have sex, they would not develop sexual desires at a young age and the development of their sexual organs would occur in their twenties. No one here is denying the fact that most children have sex at age 12-16, between children, so why is it different if a thirty year old man weds a fifteen year old? This was common behavior prior to the feminization of the West and it was common behavior before the advent of civilization as well.

I like how sometimes you're perfectly able to make very well thought posts.

I totally agree with what you say, it's just since the end of the Second World War that marriage with girls in their early teens has become such a tabu.

In the twenties over here it was perfectly acceptable to marry 14 year old girls, I think it was like this even in the US.

[Star Wars Fan]

I like how sometimes you're perfectly able to make very well thought posts.

lol :thumbsup:

In the twenties over here it was perfectly acceptable to marry 14 year old girls, I think it was like this even in the US.

In some parts of the US that is still acceptable. But yes that was *more* acceptable in the US back then

I think I know my own peoples work when I see it. :p


lol, you know your group's shit pretty well 0_o

And yeah, I knew about those symbols for a while

cool ^_^

I believe that was still Keade. She might have been fucked in brain enough already though.

Keade is Lucy when she was younger, based off my googling :p

Im referring to the Elfen Lied Anime. That was revealed in one of the later episodes.

Really, just check google scholar or proquest or the ajp archives. There are hundreds of accredited sources about the long-term effects of sexual child abuse.

I'm surprised, considering your interest in the subject, you wouldn't be aware of at least some of them.

The Rind Study shows that sexual abuse is not what is the source of that, but the family environment; e.g. getting beaten and physical hurt is what is the problem, not "childhood sexual abuse"

i havent- just heard of that one. Though, the one scene i'd looked at got to me. (i think it was from TGP..)


watch it with a bunch of people in the japanese club at a nearby college. you'll lool

i lold hard. That works too.

:D

siiigh maybe some day : (

sure. :)

[Korivan i'Alagmarae]

One may not always be able to control his feelings--he can always control his actions.

Pedos, by definition, are criminals, and very harmful ones at that.

this.

[JoePedo]

The Rind Study shows that sexual abuse is not what is the source of that, but the family environment; e.g. getting beaten and physical hurt is what is the problem, not "childhood sexual abuse"

Funny thing is, it goes even farther - RBT wasn't particularly groundbreaking or new, it's just that the "christian" (lol) "right" doesn't read "newfangled science junk," and does read the Journal of Homosexuality - probably for reasons that can be uncovered by typing "homophobia" and "plethysmograph" into a search engine.

One of its interesting predecessors is Ney, Fung, and Wickett's '94 work...

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=151335

...which - to make a long story short, found some interesting things... in general, harm from abuse looks like physical abuse > physical neglect > verbal abuse > emotional neglect... but in the top ten worst combinations, the order is verbal abuse > physical neglect > physical abuse > emotional neglect.

"Sexual abuse" doesn't even make it on the map, having a statistically insignifigant correlation an order of magnitude less than actual abuse (e.g., every other form) - even with the nondisequivocation of con/noncon, intrafamilial/extrafamilial, and all the other associated variables, in total - but... there's an even more interesting finding.

In every single outcome, any combination of legally-defined abuse was less harmful when sex was included than the same combination without sexual activity. This, interestingly enough, mirrors Harden's (http://www.healthscout.com/news/1/610053/main.html) finding that sexual activity improves outcomes for at-risk youth, suggesting somewhat that both peer-aged and intergenerational sexually and emotionally bonded relationships function equally well at improving quality of life and outcome for, at least, environmentally disadvantaged youth.

I find it immensely lulzy that "well, fuck the kid up the ass, they'll feel better" is actually a true and proven successful 'treatment' for an abusive home life - it seems hilariously surreal, and as written in the quotes above, probably is... but it does make a certain amount of sense that having the support of a coequal life parter can positively influence outcomes in a stressful environment, which matches the primate social psych studies (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5648/1231) pretty well (lol grooming), and sexual activity itself, even in a neutral context, has antistress effects.

...but... yeah. Dragging it around to the tl;dr version, not only does home environment have primary sway over outcome, but sexual "abuse" is proven to improve emotional health in at-risk youth. :) The body of science to date goes even farther than RBT ever did (or would have the balls to, lol)...

[Struwwelpeter]

I like how sometimes you're perfectly able to make very well thought posts.

I totally agree with what you say, it's just since the end of the Second World War that marriage with girls in their early teens has become such a tabu.

In the twenties over here it was perfectly acceptable to marry 14 year old girls, I think it was like this even in the US.

Thank you. You're right about Italy, and I'm pretty sure it was the same here in the US at that time as well. I have always believed that Italy, Spain, Greece, etc were the most rational when it came to age of consent laws. It's clearly the culture thing, people are simply more honest about these kinds of matters there.

[Centipede2]

Holy crap!!
But, uhh... mostly... thanks for turning me on, dude, seriously!! +rep!


Hehe. No problem, glad you liked it! Thanks for the rep.

I'll check out some of your recommendations too - I did love Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc, lol. :p

[Star Wars Fan]

One of its interesting predecessors is Ney, Fung, and Wickett's '94 work...

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=151335


something else for me to bookmark. You are awesome for giving me all this evidence.

and yes I read everything you wrote.


...similarly, throwing a tantrum that people would dare discuss subjects which are

"forbidden" is... pervasively common.

I wonder what this says about these people?

1. No one must ever discuss anything.

2. No one must ever disagree with me anywhere.

3. We should kill a fuckload of people.

...that's basically the platform, right there. That... kinda creeps me out a bit.

uh. it's 7chan's lolicon board. It's the second most popular board on 7chan next

to /b/. These people aren't moralists and biased. They are afraid of losing their

hosting, which was what ph3c30 said was the reason for not returning those boards. There

was a good discussion on the sticky...but 7chan bas been down for a few weeks


Epic fucking win.

Seen the DHHS stats? You're probably more spot-on than you think...

No, please post them. Also lol @ mormon fathers ;)
It's freudian XD


We've got enough sign-based communication to trip out on a dance floor for hours, depending on what you want to say... just with the set-independent... god knows what militias have their own sign for internal use.

tell me some of the gestures. please kthx

[Star Wars Fan]

related link
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html

Hey jo, I'm already well aware that child abuse begins at home. Hell, that chart understates it, because corporal discipline and psychological torment is even more prevalent. Anti-pedo-mania is the culmination of thousands of years of this:
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/03/23/the-history-of-child-abuse/

Children have gone from being the most abused class in history to being the most protected one now.

I just noticed (Well posted it)...the two links posted here link to mirrors. the srticles on both sides are the same (at least some of them)

[Knight of Blackness]

I believe you people are making a huge mistake in some of your posts.

Pedophilia = children (4 - 12)

I see a lot of people talking about 13/14/15/16,etc year olds. Then it's not Pedophilia, its Ephebophilia, which is another thing. We are discussing if PEDOPHILIA is wrong, having sexual intercourse with another person younger then 13.

[Dog]

I believe you people are making a huge mistake in some of your posts.

Pedophilia = children (4 - 12)

I see a lot of people talking about 13/14/15/16,etc year olds. Then it's not Pedophilia, its Ephebophilia, which is another thing. We are discussing if PEDOPHILIA is wrong, having sexual intercourse with another person younger then 13.

This.

The idea that having sex with a post-pubescent person is wrong is PURE cultural bullshit. Most countries have the age of consent around 16, and sometimes lower. Like, haha, if an American had a picture of xxombie's nude pictures (she's 16 or 17) on their computer, they could go to jail for having child porn. In most other places (Canada included), that isn't the case.

Americans need to keep in mind that thecountry has a lot of retarded puritan/fundamentalist Christian crap in its foundation.

[Star Wars Fan]

I believe you people are making a huge mistake in some of your posts.

Pedophilia = children (4 - 12)

I see a lot of people talking about 13/14/15/16,etc year olds. Then it's not Pedophilia, its Ephebophilia, which is another thing. We are discussing if PEDOPHILIA is wrong, having sexual intercourse with another person younger then 13.

more accurately, pre-pubescent is pedophilia.....some 11/12 year olds are developed.....

[JoePedo]

I believe you people are making a huge mistake in some of your posts.

Unreasonable use of bold text?

PEDOPHILIA... having sexual intercourse with another person younger then 13.

Well, technically, sexual orientation towards a person before puberty.

"Sexual intercourse' - or any action, for that matter - is no more "pedophilia" than lifers in prison are preferentially homosexual. The two topics don't even actually connect... pretty much at all, and nonpedophiles are twice as likely as 'pedophiles' to end up fucking a prepubescent child, actually...

We are discussing if PEDOPHILIA is wrong

Actually, not that, either - reread the op.

Hatred and inhumane behavior can be wrong irrespective of whether or not its target - be it "niggers" or "fags" or "pedos" - is also considered 'wrong' by the person protesting the unethical treatment.

For just one example of this, as I read the OP... he doesn't think 'pedophilia' or pedophiles are wrong, sure, but I believe he did declare himself as thinking intergenerational sexual activity was wrong, and also declared himself as thinking that hatred and cruel and unusual punishment (not the maintenance of a traditionally-based legal proess) was wrong. They're two (or possibly more than two) completely seperate and unrelated issues.

Again, read the OP.

I see a lot of people talking about 13/14/15/16,etc year olds. Then it's not Pedophilia, its Ephebophilia...

Now, that's true.

Prior to about 1950 or so, the average age of menarche was about sixteen and a half - making all those marriages pedophilic marriage involving flat-chested, hairless, non-mensturating people.

So, while now, orientation towards 13 or 14 year olds (or 8 or 9 year olds, currently) is "ephebophilic"... this is a very recent phenomenon, and until lately, attraction towards (or, marriage to) even fairly late-teens was pedophilic - due to the later onset of puberty which was normative throughout much of human history.

[Butcher]

nonpedophiles are twice as likely as 'pedophiles' to end up fucking a prepubescent child, actually...


What? I'd like to know where you got that from, and what your definition of a pedophile is.

[JoePedo]

What?

Yup.

I'd like to know what your definition of a pedophile is.

A person whose primary or signifigant sexual orientation is to prepubescent humans.

I'd like to know where you got that from.

Sure! It's pretty simple...

When pedophiles only commit 14.8% of the kiddy-diddling (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/ncapedo/report/c02.htm#note66) yet are 32.5% of the population (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2952575), kiddy-diddling by pedos is just under half (45.53%) of the per-capita rate of a randomized sample.

Now, technically, "just under half the per-capita rate" means that someone selected at random is going to be just over twice as likely to diddle a kiddie than someone who is known to be pedo - fact. But, since we specified "nonpedos," well... they just happen to be 1.262 times more likely than the per-capita average. Multiplying that by 2.2 (32.5/14.8 = 2.19(594594...)), we find that a nonpedophile is almost three times likelier (2.771) to diddle a kid than a pedo.

...but "twice is likely" is a quick shorthand, and is close enough to "almost three times as likely" or "over two and a quarter times as likely," or other such true statements that it makes a good short, lazy assertion for when one doesn't want to type out "2.7712837837837837837837837837838," lol...

But, yeah. A nonpedo is over twice as likely - almost three times as likely, in fact - to end up diddling a kid as a pedo.

[Butcher]

A person whose primary or signifigant sexual orientation is to prepubescent humans.


Okay that makes sense I was assuming that anyone with any sexual orientation towards children would be considered a pedophile, I guess the number of true pedophiles is very small compared to what the media would have us believe.

[JoePedo]

Okay that makes sense I was assuming that anyone with any sexual orientation towards children would be considered a pedophile

~nods~ Actually deciding where to put a reasonable cutoff is hard... is it anyone who's ever had a passing thought that they suppressed? People who'd never thought about it, but would still get a stiffy if you forced them to watch a pair of twelve year old lesbians? Or someone who, given the choice between a twenty five year old woman and a six year old, would actually pick the six year old, or at least not be disappointed if that's what they get?

Deciding where to put the line on a fluid gradient is difficult sometimes. However...

I guess the number of true pedophiles is very small compared to what the media would have us believe.

...if one uses the cutoff of "actually prefers or would be happy with it" - or more literally, whose attraction "equals or exceeds" any other attraction - then 1 in 3 people (32.5%) are "pedophiles."

If one uses the cutoff of "any response at all," then 9 in 10 people (88.7%) are "pedophiles.

Not sure what the media tries to portray, because they're reluctant to try to give hard figures... and in fact is sort of engaged in doublespeak - they're "everywhere" yet "no one" has any dissent to violence against them, which is sort of impossible...

...but, depending on definitions, either 1 in 3, or 9 in 10 people are pedo.

[Horselover Fat]

Maybe young girls should stop asking for it...thats right I said it. Every where you go girls are acting all grown up so what do you expect a guy to do, ignore these girls with their tank tops and short-shorts on. Hell you hang around any elementary school and the girls are acting like college girls on spring break. .

I dont bro, I dont think elementry school girls are hott, you fucking pederist

[JoePedo]

I dont bro

I'm glad to hear that you don't act like a college girl on spring break, but when I was in elementary school, I could spell "elementary."

And use an apostrophe.

[dephdiddy]

[QUOTE=PizzaNazi;274762]A study I recently read ("Brain Pathology in Pedophilic Offenders", Schiltz et al.) looked at the brains of pedophile sex offenders. They consistently found decreased gray matter in certain parts of the right hemisphere, as well as structural changes in other parts of the brain that are related to sexual activity.

"see nigga i told you pedophilia was ruh-tarded, nigga"

[Auschwitz Nazi Disneyland]

Kinsey studies show they DO


You mean the same Kinsey that handpicked child-sex survey participents based on 'deviant' sexual history, and chose ~50% of the sample group for his homosexuality survey from sex offenders and felons to skew the numbers? (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT)

[Star Wars Fan]

You mean the same Kinsey that handpicked child-sex survey participents based on 'deviant' sexual history, and chose ~50% of the sample group for his homosexuality survey from sex offenders and felons to skew the numbers? (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT)

lol

It is no wonder that young people are engaging in promiscuous
sexual activity, now more than ever, with the resulting rise of venereal
diseases, illegitimate pregnancies, abortion, AIDS, etc. It is obviously a
cause-and-effect scenario, and our society is clearly reaping the fruits
from this type of mentality.

this says otherwise:
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html

A variety of
materials from Alyson Publications, which consist mostly of pro-homosexual
literature, includes a new series of books that attempt to justify
pedophilia and render its perpetrators respectable. "They promote children
as objects of sexual pleasure, give advice on how to have sex with children
without getting caught, provide locations around the world were child
prostitutes can be had, and list clubs pedophiles can join..."

Care to provide some links? I'd like to read this. I haven't seen anything on this before on 12chan or any other sites. I've seen peopel discussing this on sites and whatnot, but haven't seen any books and the like. I did a search for part of the quote on google and nothing came up.

EDIT: Wait, found this
http://www.vidahumana.org/english/family/kinsey.html

source #30. Can't find the " a new look a incest" citation/source though.

also the source is suspect:

The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
Provided courtesy of:

The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336


lol catholics. Besides, the sucessors to Kinsey did look over his stuff and removed what the conservatives of the time bitched about, and the studies are similar. There are also other child sexuality studies...

"see nigga i told you pedophilia was ruh-tarded, nigga"

it simply shows that they are neurodivergent. It doesn't state that they are 'retarded'. Inb4 neurotypicals bitching about 'political correctness'

[Travis Bickle]

i figure pedophilia is something they can't do anything about. they were born that way. so if they happen to fuck a kiddie without getting caught, good for them.

[SLIM]

i figure pedophilia is something they can't do anything about. they were born that way. so if they happen to fuck a kiddie without getting caught, good for them.

Couldn't be more wrong.

[Star Wars Fan]

Couldn't be more wrong.

how so :confused:

[hooloovoo]

Lolwut?!?!?! lol...

Okay... in addition to the billion other improbabilities and impossibilities in that, no science has a "conclusion." It has (a) data and (b) hypotheosis.

lol...

See, this is why people don't like responding to you. Not that you really care, but when I saw you responded to me ages ago I stopped reading after seeing you "copypasta'd" (god that invented word is annoying) half of my sentence out of context, to respond to a point I didn't make.

To reword: Studies will have the same conclusion regardless of what I might want to see, meaning my wishes (which you are ignorant of anyway) have no effect on the outcome and bringing them up is irrelevant. Got a problem with that?


Ok. And to respond: conclusion, results, analysis of the data gathered as it relates to the hypothesis- whatever you want to call it, it's the last step of the scientific method unless you include sharing among the community.

If comprehensive review books can use the same term to refer to recent study findings, I'm not going to feel to bad about my word choice.



Tell me, if there are scientists among the pedo community searching for research to point to the opposite conclusion


Umm... wtf drugs of abuse leads your imagination to create these lulzy fantasies, and wherethefuck did you make this up from???


how are they gathering more reliable, unbiased samples?

Well, it's your own damn fiction that came from fucking nowhere - but since you're taking an interest in correcting your generalized scientific illiteracy, the major points are randomization of sample selection, isolation of seperate variables, and, of course, the disequivocation between correlatory and causatory stimuli.

What, the "pedocons" I've heard you speak of aren't for real? Well, I guess I missed the joke- now I'm disappointed.

I supposed I assumed that since you seem to discount the majority of mainstream studies related to the topic, your active, scientist-filled community- assured enough of their hypothesis to possibly become sexually involved with children- must have their own studies with "isolation of seperate variables" that clearly disprove those other findings.

Cuz asking four year old Betty how she feels afterwards doesn't really hold up to peer review...
Actually... umm... yes it does.

Whoops, guess not...

It still has nothing to do with anything, because no one in this thread is yet sure where the fuck you pulled this imaginary tangent from, but it does just so happen that "self-report of subjective matter X in population Y" is "self-report of subjective matter X in population Y." Attempting to equivocate to matters not studied (such as monoamine oxidase activity in the lateral genticulate nucleus) wouldn't pass peer review, but the study as you phrased it, within its limited scope, actually would.

Child self-reporting has to be more closely examined than other self-reporting, because children are easy to mislead and are likely to give the response they believe the interviewer wants to hear- eventually vigilantly believing the story they give, even if it's false. Take the McMartin preschool trial, for example- What we learned from those child confessions can go both ways.

If the person inviting the self-reporting has been intimately involved with the child, that's a clear conflict of interest and you can't take what's said at face value. Do you really not see that?

Not to mention Betty at 4 is not Betty at 20 or 15 or 10... she is still developing her ability to understand and process information, and questioning her at that age gives no insight into any possible future impacts.


hooloovoo
And hey, on the flip side of that coin- not every study that points to an inconvenient conclusion for you is as stupidly conducted as you would like
ORLY? lol...

Dare you to find one that even pulls off variable isolation, lol. I can think of two. You, otoh, good luck - especially with your demonstrated gross scientific illiteracy.

So, 'Effects of sexual and physical abuse: A comparison of adolescent inpatients' (Child Psychiatry and Human Development 1989)... was not a comparison of adolescent... inpatients??

OMGNOWAI!!

There are clinical and nonclinical studies- but both groups have an equal background. If the sample group is made up of adolescent inpatients, then the control group is also made up of adolescent inpatients so that the only differing factor is CSA.

But if that's not good enough, then S. Peters (1984), Bagley and Ramsay (1985), Finkelhor (1984) and Briere and Runtz (1985) all use comparative groups from nonclinical samples.

So, you're saying people just walk up to a handful of five year olds at the pokemon convention and ask them whether they rate their uncle touching their peepee was positive, negative, or neutral in their estimate of life effect?Wow, look at that- "it's your own damn fiction that came from fucking nowhere!"

...nice.

[The Jitterskull]

Wow. JoethePedo, stop taking this thread so seriously. You've typed more in this thread than I probably had to type in all my lab reports. This is ridiculous. :mad:

RIDIC-U-LOUS!

[JoePedo]

Wow. JoethePedo, stop taking this thread so seriously.

lol no.

You've typed more in this thread than I probably had to type in all my lab reports. This is ridiculous. :mad:

That's ALL my posts.

See, this is why people don't like responding to you. Not that you really care...

Well, glad we've got that second part established.

What, the "pedocons" I've heard you speak of aren't for real? Well, I guess I missed the joke- now I'm disappointed.

Okay. Can you link me to where I one day posted "lolomg we all got together and had a major orgy and gave a customer satisfaction exit survey lololololol?"

'cause... I still think you're chewing-on-your-socks insane, dude.

[hooloovoo]

So, your official retort is "I don't care and you're insane anyway?"



...nice :cool:


Also, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarcasm

Recognition is half the battle.




...lolololololololololollolol <--wow, that is a ring finger work-out, isn't it?

[JoePedo]

So, your official retort is "I don't care and you're insane anyway?"

Not exactly.

My response to "wry u quote me i no liek u" is "I don't care."

My response to "secret illuminati pedophilic orgies with several prominent political figures" - or whatever the hell that was - is "I think you're insane, but you're welcome to prove otherwise."

There's a bit of a difference there... but hey, if I'm bored, I might just go with 'fuck you I'm a dragon' anyway at some time in the future.

[SKUV]

Suck a little hairless crack uhh hold em down they can't fight back. Watch em screaam and cry fear fuckin cunt don't tell nobody dear. Cuz it's alright to expose yourself to kids, do it now before they grow up and its too late. Follow them to elementary school at recess time, pull your pecker in front of them and MASTERBATE.


LOL@GG Allen.

[hooloovoo]

Not exactly.

My response to "wry u quote me i no liek u" is "I don't care."

My response to "secret illuminati pedophilic orgies with several prominent political figures" - or whatever the hell that was - is "I think you're insane, but you're welcome to prove otherwise."

There's a bit of a difference there... but hey, if I'm bored, I might just go with 'fuck you I'm a dragon' anyway at some time in the future.

You're slow for a fast typer. The only thing you're willing to respond to was called ridicule. Much like your "5 year olds gathered from an arcade" premise.

But that's right- you don't like responding to actual points.

[newgeneration]

http://100nonude.com/nnmagaz/GALLS/Nastia/alina-balletstar2/images/011.jpg
http://100nonude.com/nnmagaz/GALLS/Cma-stars/alena-model1/images/IMG_5211.JPG
http://100nonude.com/nnmagaz/GALLS/Cma-stars/cma-stars2/images/IMG_7648.JPG
http://www.cma-stars.com/images/1468908543.jpg

Enjoy.

[Bensozia]

In the past, I've shared the general American sentiment that pedophilia is terrible and that pedophiles are scum. I've recently had a change of heart. While I still am certainly against pedophilia and think that our cultural guidelines should be respected, I think society should stop villainizing pedophiles.

Why?

Their drive for sex with prepubescent children is just as strong (and there's actually evidence that it's stronger) as our drive for normal adult relations. The common counter to that statement seems to be along the lines of "The law is the law, and they made a conscious choice to break it." But I don't think it's that simple. If you found yourself in a society where it was illegal to have heterosexual adult sex, it certainly wouldn't be easy for you to suppress your desires. (Especially if heterosexual pornography was also outlawed)

I'm not suggesting that we change our cultural views on pedophilia to accomodate pedophiles. Rather, I think it's wrong to criminalize them for something they have little (if any) control over. They should be put in mental institutes like anyone else with a mental disorder, we should work to cure them, or if it's unfeasible, we should find some way for them to live in society without being a threat to children. For instance, if some forms of child pornography were made legal (such as provocative nude posing), I would be interested to know whether they would be able to resist their temptation to act on their urges.

What do you think?

Strangely, paedophilia seemed to be pretty much accepted in ancient times (was known as pederasty I believe). It wasn't uncommon for grown men in ancient Greece and Persia to mate with barely pubescent adolescents. And it wasn't seen as unhealthy or taking advantage of the teen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to justify the act of raping young children or coercing them into having sex. All I'm saying is that adolescence is a period in one's life where the hormonal rush is such that our sex drive literally explodes. The need to explore oneself and one another intimately grows fast and many teenagers engage in sexual activity by age 14-15.

Also, it's not uncommon to see kids exploring sexuality and sexual themes at an early age and this is a completely healthy and normal behaviour.

Now as for adults who enjoy sex with minors, I think you are quite right. If this is how they roll, there is no need to try and regulate them, just let them acknowledge their own drive and let them enter an appropriate facility where they can live on and work on this, if it's possible.

Also, some countries like Japan have considerably lowered the age of consent. I think it's also something we could ponder on.

This is a very convoluted subject since it relies on how we position ourselves in regards to sexuality, which is always pretty complex.

[Star Wars Fan]

Enjoy.

I love that I post on a site where we can post this and people don't bitch or try to b& the posters (same for late-era TOTSE middle 2007 and on).

[NTP]

inb4joepedo

Edit: to late

[Star Wars Fan]

^^^^
lololol

[Oct]

I too agree that there is a minority of "pedophiles" that exist that can fully control their urges. On the contrary you can compare this obsession to heroin addiction. Whether you give in to your needs is totallly down to one's decision. But if someone follows through with their need to do what they do, i think they are fully aware of the consequences and therefore should face justice. I remember hearing about a pedophile that could not control his urges and comitted suicide before he went through with them. This makes me believe there are people who can be controlled whether through chemicals or counselling, only time will tell. There should be more research in this area.

[felonious_monk]

It's amazing how people are so incredibly accepting to gay people and so disgusted and offended by pedophiles. It's like do you think they chose to be like that? I think these people are outcasted by society and get frustrated because they know if anyone finds out they are a pedophile they will be outcasted from society. Basically there is no group of people except pedophiles themselves that accept someone like this. This causes them to get frustrated untill they give in and rape a little girl.

Now there are pedophiles who are just plain evil people...But then again evil people live among us, I think it's just the fact that they are attracted to kids that make them do horrible things to kids.

Now of course I'm not saying having sex with a little kid is justified, but I believe just because someone is a pedo they shouldn't be outcasted from society...They should be accepted, and helped. Not treated like a bad guy just because they have a disorder. (like gay ppl) I think if it were more accepted then there wouldn't be as many kids getting touched if they could get some help without being outcasted from society.

k sorry im high i hope that made sense

[Star Wars Fan]

who the hack bumped this....oh i see :p

[JoePedo]

who the hack bumped this....oh i see :p

Ask not who bumped this, for this is futility. It is enough to merely acknowledge, and accept, that it has been bumped... and to continue bumpin', 'n bumpin'... bumpin' away in the pedolands...

....heeeeeyyyy... wait a minute.

Ah, well. It has been bumped, this is zen.

But that's right- you don't like responding to actual points.

That depends, does you has any???

I too agree that there is a minority of "pedophiles" that exist that can fully control their urges.

A "minority," you say?

About one third (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789405800395) - 32.5% - of males are primarily paederotic in orientation; that is, their sexuality is more responsive to preadolescent stimulus than to adult women.

If you bother to read through the study, about 9 in 10 males - 88.7% of the studies - are at least measurably paederotic - that is, their sexuality is measurably oriented towards preadolescent stimulus, whether or not it is more oriented towards postadolescent, preadolescent, or about the same. They, too, would count as "pedophiles."

So - are most people you meet on a daily basis diddling kids?

I have no idea what the answer is, but it's amusing to think about either way.

On the contrary you can compare this obsession to heroin addiction.

Can I make the same comparison for heterosexual orientation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

^^ that is the only treatment heteronormativity is going to recieve.

Speaking of heteronormativity - ever notice that "pedophile awareness" and "domestic violence pamphlets" give the exact opposite advice??

Pedophile 'awareness' : Promotes isolation. "Don't talk to strangers."

Domestic violence pamphlets : notes attempting to isolate you is a warning sign of domestic and intrafamilial violence.

Pedophile 'awareness' : Suggests monitoring all communication.

Domestic violence pamphlets : Notes that trying to control - or cut off - communication is a warning sign of domestic and intrafamilial violence.

Et cetera. Did you know that the vast majority of violence, including sexual violence, occurs at the hands of a family member?

Yeah. Think about it.

~cough~

Maybe it's a lie with some pretty shady intentions.

The final word, however, on heterosexual/sexual minority relations (besides "quit raping your kids, breeder"), comes from your sigtext.

"It's better to die standing than to live on your knees" - Che Guevara

I propose the oppressed sexual majority, under the heels of coercive heteronormativity, has a debt from the priviledged class which is long overdue.

We need to activate that 30-90% - to die on its feet, rather than cower before the - often abusive - heterosexual parent or caretaker. "The violent priviledge of the heteropatriarch," if you will.

[Oct]

I can't help but notice just how wrong this is. How the hell can you conduct an accurate study without performing a lie detector test at the same time? What i mean is that you are stating that during this study, 88.7% of those questioned willingly stated they have a "preference" or are "measurably orientated" towards pre-adolescents? I completely disagree, not to mention you quote Wiki as one of your sources, this can be falsified "hetronorm propaganda" :lol:.

You mention 32.5% as being more responsive, is this the minority that will go through and harm a child or are you saying they have more "pedo genes" than others? Regarding the 88.7% group of which i assume is the "norm" group (and which i suppose most of us fall into), you are saying are controlled pedophiles???? I think not! You also state that it's down to knowing what is wrong and what is right by teaching, "don't talk to strangers" etc. etc. helps control this. Again you are wrong, almost every pedophile that has gone to commit horrific crimes would have at least once in their life been taught the dangers of speaking to strangers, the evils of peadophillia, its self choice as to why they go through with their actions.


The final word, however, on heterosexual/sexual minority relations (besides "quit raping your kids, breeder"), comes from your sigtext.

"It's better to die standing than to live on your knees" - Che Guevara

I propose the oppressed sexual majority, under the heels of coercive heteronormativity, has a debt from the priviledged class which is long overdue.

We need to activate that 30-90% - to die on its feet, rather than cower before the - often abusive - heterosexual parent or caretaker. "The violent priviledge of the heteropatriarch," if you will.

No this quote refers to pride and not having to live on your knees under tyranny. If you compare the "priviledged" classes as being the tyranny and the hard-done-by peadophile majority as being victims, your statement is contradictory. So the priviledge classes are the bourgeouise that state the norms for the other classes? No, anathema of pedophiles is shared by all social classes.

If however this study does exist, please post the link as it will provide some interesting reading. Some good thoughts there Joe nonetheless: ].

[&Zenith]

As an ephebophile, I look down upon pedophiles. In other words, stop liking what I don't like! But more seriously, just because I'm attracted to some girls in their mid-teens and on doesn't mean I ever should or actually would hit that. The same should go in the case of pedophiles. I don't care what you're attracted to or get off on. I don't think children can truly consent and as a result should never be bothered in such a manner. Perhaps in the future, in a more sexually liberal society where the concept of sex is taught as soon as the child can understand it, and the child then consented to relations with a person who legitimately cared for them for reasons other than sex, THEN I MAY be alright with it. I don't think I'd ever give consent for my child to give consent unless it was some hawt female on my son, though, even in the pedophilic utopic society that I used as an example. Are pedophilic and utopic even words?

[JoePedo]

As an ephebophile, I look down upon pedophiles. In other words, stop liking what I don't like!

Frankly, I'd like to commend you for the most honest analysis I've seen on the topic.

Most people just won't admit that this is their basis for trying to dictate the daily lives of people they will never, ever meet.

Fail

"More aroused by preteens than adults" = "more aroused by preteens than adults." Congratulations on grasping at straws - but you're not going to change that.

More amusingly still, let's look at what the original exchange was about, shall we??

I too agree that there is a minority of "pedophiles" that exist that {don't conform to group stereotypes generated in the bourgeouise press}

A "minority," you say? ... So - are most people you meet on a daily basis diddling kids?

So, what was that part you quoted thinking it was some kind of "magic talisman??"

Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli {paederotic orientation} does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior {paederotic stereotypes generated by the heteronormative bourgeouise media}.

Sooo...

1. I make an assertion.

2. You quote something that says that this assertion is correct.

Congratulations, special boy. Maybe you ought to read your magic talismans before you cling to them.

Reasoning ain't your strong suit, I guess.

How the hell can you conduct an accurate study without performing a lie detector test at the same time?

...by measuring arousal directly.

Others which had both self-report and arousal measurement did, however, find about a 20% underreporting rate - not surprising, when some guy you don't know is asking you whether you think little kids are teh hawt. So, if you want to continue to switch the methodology for one not used - just inflate the numbers, lol.

Usually, I use what is actually there. In this case, direct response measurement.

What i mean is that you are stating that during this study, 88.7% of those questioned willingly stated they have a "preference" or are "measurably orientated" towards pre-adolescents?

"Showed measurable arousal towards preadolescents" - i.e., "are pedophiles."

I completely disagree...

Well, congratulations princess special.

Unfortunately for you - though fortunately for those of us who do not like science to be controlled by every flat-earther tantrum that comes along - reality-denial does not change observational data. The recorded data is the recorded data, and no amount of "but I want reality to be something different" will change previously observed measurement.

not to mention you quote Wiki as one of your sources

No, I mention wikipedia as hosting an overview of the tit for tat strategy.

In no way was it used as a reference for any assertion from any other study, nor am I particularly bound to the game theoretic outlined therein in my relations with the heterosexual "normative" or priviledged class members.

You mention 32.5% as being more responsive, is this the minority that will go through and harm a child

Why no. I do not believe that sexual assault is a crime of sexual orientation, nor that sexual orientation is synonymous with violence.

In fact, I would call such assumptions... the sign of a grotesque individual. Yes, I would go that far.

It merely means that their paederotic orientation, in addition to being present (as with 88.7% of the populace), is greater than any secondary heterosexual orientation.

You also state that it's down to knowing what is wrong and what is right by teaching, "don't talk to strangers" etc. etc. helps control this.

All it helps "control" or "prevent" is the disclosure of sexual violence by the heterosexual parent or caretaker.

Isolation has never protected anyone from domestic violence - neither has denying agency and sabotaging any attempts to express it, for that matter.

A lot has been invested in defending the right of the heteropatriarch to rape with impunity - from miseducation campaigns which suggest that parents isolate their child victim, to scapegoating attempts to distract attention away from the home to "those queers out there," all the way to explicit heterosexual legalization (http://www.vachss.com/av_articles/willametteweek2.html) and forcible retrieval for those who, facing isolation with their domestic abuser, the heterosexual parent or caretaker, run away.

I... do not legitimize any of the media of heterosexual priviledge, nor will I.

And no, "not disclosing" propaganda is not any form of positive "educational" indoctrination, nor good social policy.

No this quote refers to pride and not having to live on your knees under tyranny.

Well - I have pride, and I do not toady up to the heterosexual state.

If you compare the "priviledged" classes as being the tyranny and the hard-done-by peadophile majority as being victims, your statement is contradictory.

Uhh - no it's not.

And I still will not bow on my knees in submission to any demands which would place heteronormativity above me.

No, anathema of pedophiles is shared by all social classes.

"Trace amounts of." It's usually 5-10% of any target that will actually defend heterosexual priviledge.

Regardless, that's... pretty meaningless. Economically well-off and economically-disadvantaged whites had trace members who held prejudice against african americans in the pre-civil-war southern US. Despite your assertion, this did not magically translate to african americans becoming of equal priviledge.

But... just for the hell of it... we can do it by state and economic class if you wish.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide what sexual orientations the state "approves" or "disapproves" - only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether the discourse on intrafamilial violence against children and youth focuses inside or outside the home - only the priviledged can do that..

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether educational programs advocate increase or decrease isolation from those who are not one's domestic abuser - only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide the sexual orientation of the "badguy" on tonight's "cop fiction" drama. Only those with priviledge can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether persons of their status are represented realistically, accurately, or fairly. Only those with priviledge can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide what "crimes" against the dictates of the bourgeouise state are reported, and which ones are not. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide with what language "crimes" against the dictates of the bourgeouise state are reported. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether rape is an explicitly decriminalized perogative of the heterosexual male head of household, granted special exemption by the state. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether those who sabotage an isolation with one's rapist created and enforced by priviledge by running away are forcibly returned. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether funding childrens' services or censoring the internet is the sole "appropriate" and "neccesary" thing to do. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether they actually get an input in a legal process in which they are allegedly a victim. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether their input outweighs their father's in a legal process in which they are allegedly a victim. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether educational grants which propose increasing the social circle to have more people to reach out to get more government funding than those which propose internet censorship. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide which points of view get airtime in media and which do not. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether they have a character which resembles them in sitcoms. Only the priviledged can do that.

- Those without priviledge, whether they parrot the prejudices taught by the institutions of priviledge or not, do not have the means to decide whether the people and situations used in advertisements resemble them. Only the priviledged can do that.

...these are just a few examples on the fly. End runaway laws, and ffs, quit worrying that your daughter is going to find a (boy/girl/dog)friend/disclose what you do to them at night. Isolation does not facilitate recourse.

Some good thoughts there Joe nonetheless.

Likewise. :)

Most of my work has been from an heteropatriarchal violence/orientational priviledge struggle, with trace amounts of feminist theory, and my only marxist theory indirect from the black power movement.

Thanks for forcing me to put it in terms of pure class analysis. It really is a powerful tool, and you've helped me immensely. I'd love to see what the technologies you've bumped me into do when it's not just on the fly...

You've been amazingly helpful - thanks for pushing me.

[A$AP Weed Smoker]

i think it's wrong to stick your dick in children. those are my thoughts about it.

[JoePedo]

The quoted text refutes your claim that most men can be conclusively proven to be pedophiles.

No, it says that pedophiles may be law abiding.

Are you serious?? I should "read"

Yes.

[JoePedo]

I never claimed otherwise, but the two facts are not mutually exclusive anyway.

It could be that the majority of men are not pedophiles, and some pedophiles may be law abiding.

It's not against the law to be attracted to children.

True, though you can be extradicially detained without being charged with a crime - in the US, anyway - which I find slightly morally questionable...

...but...

But my point is your claim that most men are pedophiles is not necessarily supported by the link you provided. That's all I was saying.

Nah, you have to purchase the full article for that - which you can do at the link provided, or elsewhere.

The actual text you quoted, though, was...

Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior.

;)

Which pretty much amounts to "not all pedophiles have broken the law."

[Rolf]

If said wench has bled, said wench is ready, provided the father has consented the wench on behalf of said wench, explains Rolf. If one wishes to take such action without the father's consent, Rolf suggests donning the arms and armour of one and taking said wench by force, suggests Rolf.

[ObscuredByClouds]

does joepedo only comment on topics relating to children?

[JoePedo]

does joepedo only comment on topics relating to children?

No, I also comment on topics relating to neurology, chemistry, and molecular biology.

...and occasionally, philosophy, religion, and psychology. With a few other random things for good measure.

I do enjoy a good thread trolling my ass, though. Conquering ground for my people... la revolucion.

[Oct]

Joe, your page long rambling still fails to prove your point. Instead of providing the sources used, you continue to ramble on with little points proved.







[quote] Unfortunately for you - though fortunately for those of us who do not like science to be controlled by every flat-earther tantrum that comes along - reality-denial does not change observational data. The recorded data is the recorded data, and no amount of "but I want reality to be something different" will change previously observed measurement. And your sources?

Originally Posted by Fox Paws View Post
But my point is your claim that most men are pedophiles is not necessarily supported by the link you provided. That's all I was saying. :clap:

:lol: ahhhh joe, joe, joe all of your post is just ludicrous rhetoric..WHERE IS THE STUDY SOURCES?????? You have yet to prove this which is why this is getting more comical by the post.

You need to embrace other zoklet's opinions instead of going on the attack all the time, after all we are not all attacking your defence or whatever of pedophiles, just the fact that some of your intel is flawed. You could shut us all up by providing these sources and i will be happy to apologize but till then this is all what your telling us. Also 88.7% of those questioned who were paederotic does not automatically transfer onto the human populace as a whole. So in general you are saying that 88.7% of the populace as a whole are fucking kiddy fiddlers?? How can you expect someone with the name " Joe pedo" seriously when backing pedophiles.

I also wanted to ask you on a serious note. How young are you willing to go for when choosing a...."sexual partner". I actually fear the answer.

[JoePedo]

Joe, your page long rambling still fails to prove your point. Instead of providing the sources used

Perhaps you should click (https://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=2922021&postcount=211) the fucking link to the study, then??

Y'know, instead of, I dunno, pretending failing to read something means it wasn't there??

WHERE IS THE STUDY SOURCES??????

In that link in the original post you're ignoring.

See how the words "one third" have an underline? See how your mouse cursor changes when you move it over the underlined text?

That means it is something called a hyperlink. When you click on it - it takes you places! Isn't internetting fun??

You need to embrace other zoklet's opinions instead of going on the attack all the time

Actually, I said...

Thanks for forcing me to put it in terms of pure class analysis. It really is a powerful tool, and you've helped me immensely.

...but I guess "thanking you" is an "attack."

after all we are not all attacking your defence or whatever of pedophiles

Let me check the honesty of that statement.

How can you expect someone with the name " Joe pedo" seriously when backing pedophiles.

So, your entire argument is "lol, ur a fag?"

Hmm. Pardon me while I fail to be mystified by your 1337 heterosexuality.

You could shut us all up by providing these sources and i will be happy to apologize

1. Click link.

2. Read abstract.

3. Apologize. Or don't, I mean, I can totally deal with it no problem.

I also wanted to ask you on a serious note. How young are you willing to go for when choosing a...."sexual partner". I actually fear the answer.

Let's just say I'm not likely to fall for "divide and conquer."

...they usually choose me, though. God bless older sisters, btw - providing more-honest educational services since the dawn of time.

[Oct]

Perhaps you should click (https://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=2922021&postcount=211) the fucking link to the study, then??

Y'know, instead of, I dunno, pretending failing to read something means it wasn't there??



In that link in the original post you're ignoring.

See how the words "one third" have an underline? See how your mouse cursor changes when you move it over the underlined text?

That means it is something called a hyperlink. When you click on it - it takes you places! Isn't internetting fun??



Actually, I said...



...but I guess "thanking you" is an "attack."



Let me check the honesty of that statement.



So, your entire argument is "lol, ur a fag?"

Hmm. Pardon me while I fail to be mystified by your 1337 heterosexuality.



1. Click link.

2. Read abstract.

3. Apologize. Or don't, I mean, I can totally deal with it no problem.



Let's just say I'm not likely to fall for "divide and conquer."

...they usually choose me, though. God bless older sisters, btw - providing more-honest educational services since the dawn of time.

THE FUCKING LINK TAKES YOU BACK TO THIS PAGE YOU FUCKING SPASTIC!!!

Divide and conquer??? You really are a fucking loser you can't even answer the question..... HOW OLD????? All you have to do is give an age but you can't even do that, instead you go on to talk about sisters WTF? Another thing i find myself laughing is your pathetic attempts at trying to prove yourself right, all of which have left you looking nothing more than a sad coneceited loser :XD: I'm not going to waste any more time even reading your posts, infact i will block you as you have proved yourself to be nothing more than a child molester looking for an excuse to exist by saying there are probably more pedophiles than there are none pedophiles. Till the day such a STUDY proves you right, you will remain like Columbus playing with his dick trying to prove the world is fucking round.You make me sick!

Nice try at being smart btw,"douch bag". ;)

[JoePedo]

THE FUCKING LINK TAKES YOU BACK TO THIS PAGE YOU FUCKING SPASTIC!!!

Yes, to the post with the link to the study you're pretending doesn't exist.

In that link in the original post you're ignoring.

See how the words "one third" have an underline? See how your mouse cursor changes when you move it over the underlined text?

That means it is something called a hyperlink. When you click on it - it takes you places! Isn't internetting fun??

See? I even included detailed instructions!!

Another thing i find myself laughing is your pathetic attempts at trying to prove yourself right, all of which have left you looking nothing more than a sad coneceited loser :XD:

You need to embrace other zoklet's opinions instead of going on the attack all the time

Cain't we all just get along?

i will block you as you have proved yourself to be nothing more than a child molester

Pro tip : not agreeing with you =/= raep.

looking for an excuse to exist

"Existing" provides me with a pretty good excuse to exist. WTF is yours??

by saying there are probably more pedophiles than there are none pedophiles.

Nooo, that was why I highly doubt your "most are criminals and only a minutae could be law abiding" assertion.

We're just waiting, biding our time, training for the time when we will kill our heterosexual overlords...

Till the day such a STUDY proves you right

Here, let me supply those instructions for you...

In that link in the original post you're ignoring.

See how the words "one third" have an underline? See how your mouse cursor changes when you move it over the underlined text?

That means it is something called a hyperlink. When you click on it - it takes you places! Isn't internetting fun??

Maybe you'll get it. Someday.

you will remain like Columbus playing with his dick

Can you... provide references documenting Columbus' orientation??

...trying to prove the world is fucking round.

The irony here... does not escape me, no.

Nice try at being smart btw,"douch bag". ;)

Thanks!

I take pride in my ability to both understand wtf a hyperlink is, and to click on it when I want to, y'know, click on a hyperlink.

Admittedly, I did not consider this to be any sign for or against "average intelligence" before this conversation, but I will reevaluate my standards as per your request.

Thanks for playing.

[constantinople]

Eh, I don't see anything wrong with being attracted to younger children, you just can't act on those desires. Sorry, everyone has their proverbial crosses to bear. Children shan't be fucked with. What you imagine fucking in your head....that's all up to you man. If you want to spend 6 hours a day on motherless.com, then go for it. I'd rather you did that then abuse the children :o

[supernoodle]

Dare I even go any further on this site I see some dickhead has posted some photos above. ...Peados may well be pitiful creatures..many of which will have been abused themselves...the point is they know their desires are counter to how our civilization runs..they also know the concupiscence of their actions...they know their destroy peoples lives yet they choose to stay alive on this planet..and they choose to destroy innocent kids permanantly..they do indeed know its beyond wrong to do what they do..yet they still do it...get it..there fore their is no sympathy..no forgiveness...these sociopaths dont give a damn about the most vulnerable people. The fact that peados dont just go out and hang or shoot themselves before they damage people, is whats unforgivable. This is all you need to know...they choose to continue to live amongs us when they know what they are. this simple fact means they are beyond redemption. Im not saying they can help what they are but they can certainly put a stop to existing.

[Resistance]

Way to necro-bump, wankstain.