I feel very, very sad for pedophiles. I feel nothing but disgust for child molesters. The one does not equal the other, as has been pointed out more eloquently by others.

Bronies, on the other hand, are disgraceful whether they ever fuck a cartoon pony or not.

But it's kind of hard to fuck a cartoon pony. Not many have suceeded.
At the end of the day, they don't give a shit what they're doing, they just want it to look like they're actually doing something when they're doing dick-all.

It's a simple double standard, really. Fictional games and movies where people are being slaughtered and murdered by the masses are being sold on every street corner. Yet fictional child pornography should remain illegal because it presumably encourages pedophiles to do the real thing.

Granted some people believe violent games make you violent (same idiots in the British government if memory serves) but normal thinking people know that's not the case. So then the question becomes; why is it okay to entertain yourself with one fictional crime and not the other?

When you make a video game about killing people you don't have to actually kill people. When you make pornography about children you do actually have to put children into those situations.

I think Havoc is talking about fictional depictions of child porn, i.e. illustrations.

Indeed I am.

You still fuck tigers, Havoc?

Of course.

Good answer. Wouldn't have you any other way.

But it's more responsible to supply him with a bottemless porn-pit of fictious tigers to fuck.

I learned something today.

No, I think he’d prefer they have bottoms.

I once saw this video of a girl forking her eye out with a fork and moaning. It was real, and pretty grim. It was hot, though.
Is that illegal?

A lot of places don't allow graphic depictions of real gore much less self harm but no one's dying and it's entirely consensual so I'm pretty sure that's legal.

It’s not hot though.

It really isn’t.

To be honest, I think I'd moan if I had a fork sticking out of my eye. It's no forking joke.

We are not an imageboard, we do not reply to things with reaction images.

Yes, we do. Images tell a thousand words.

What thousand words does this one tell?

That finding such a digusting thing hot makes Crash want to open a window and jump out, forever leaving OWF behind.

I think Nepsotic needs to up his meds.

That's twenty one. Unless you can an image that tells nine hundred and seventy nine more words (Don't try to be clever with me MM) then I can't see it as anything other than spam.

am i the only one who feels the same amount of disgust for both child molesters and paedophiles? i must be ignorant because i thought they were one and the same therefore i genuinely thought being a paedophile was illegal, i didn't know they could admit they were a paedophile and then just carry on with their day-to-day lives. to be honest i find that horrifying.

A pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction towards children. You can't help the way you were made, and there's no such thing as a crime in potential.

I imagine that fear of a paedophile stems from his potential to harm due to the pent-up frustrations he (or she) must have rather than what they've actually done, and it's actually quite tragic that they're unlucky enough to be configured that way, to be honest. I don't know the ins and outs, but I'd be willing to bet if someone was to admit to the authorities that they were a paedophile, they'd be at least be to some degree monitored to make sure they didn't act upon their feelings.

EDIT: WoF the speedy shit. And probably in more ways than one

I found an explanatory video on the matter for anyone interested



Oh it's NSFW by the way

Darn, I only watch safe for work paedophilia videos.

EDIT: Oh man, it's hilarious so far.

that's fucked up. seriously. so it's okay to look so long as they don't act on their desires? that isn't good enough and sounds too much like a ticking timebomb. also how can you be certain a self-confessed 'friendly' paedophile isn't going to indulge in child porn in the privacy of their own home without constant intrusive surveillance? doesn't seem worth it.

who even admits they're a paedophile? surely it'd be swiftly followed by total ostracisation from society in general.

EDIT: i can't play videos at the moment, so i cannot see it unfortunately.

I only had to change two words.

A child molester is a rapist before he's a pedophile.

Yes you were ignorant about the issue and you have the media to thank for that. The only 'pedophile' cases you see on the news are the ones where children have been kidnapped, raped for years and preferably murdered and eaten. That has nothing to do with pedophilia though. That's a rapist sociopath picking children because they are defenseless and easy targets, not because they are children.

Again I believe that fear is the product of the media rather than the danger that pedophiles actually present. The notion that everyone who has feelings for young children is by definition a rapist who is out to kidnap them is completely absurd. Yet somehow it manifested itself as truth, probably because, as a parent, you're not going to take the gamble that a known pedophile has no bad intentions.

Logically speaking a friendly pedophile wouldn't have an interest in watching videos where children are being harmed or forced.

Also the entire fear campaign that's going on against child sexuality (especially in the US and UK) has made it virtually impossible for a pedophile to talk about their desires openly without being labeled as a sexual predator. And thus made it impossible to seek help, should they feel the need. In many cases it's impossible to even discuss the subject with an open mind, like I'm doing, without immediately being accused of being a pedophile.

@ WoF:
that really doesn't work. a paedophile is sexually attracted to children but can't/won't act on these desires because actions = consequences. so they may end up with a partner, start a family, but they're still a paedophile and their sexual preference for children makes them untrustworthy. it's like having a fetish for murder; it's fucking illegal and you shouldn't even like the shit.

a straight male, however, has a sexual preference for women. not kids, or rape, just women. having sex with consenting women is not illegal, therefore legally achieveable and not fucked up in the slightest. how you go from straight male to RAPE is beyond me, anyone who forcefully has sex with anything unconsenting is messed up, and rape isn't exclusive to straight males. those kinds of people obviously find some form of pleasure in the act and are called rapists for a reason, not straight males. i'm a straight male and i find the concept of rape to be heinous and a total turn-off, i have no fantasies or wishes to go through with such an act. it's damning.

i mean i could use your argument to say all straight males are potential paedophiles, or rapists, or murderers, anything. straight male is a fucking huge category. i'm sure Hitler was a straight male too. it doesn't mean anything.

also no, a child molester is a rapist as well as a paedophile.

Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong. Rape is wrong. A sexual attraction to children is not by definition wrong. It's statistically rare.

Being gay was illegal until about 50 years ago and still is illegal is many countries and was/is also deemed wrong on the same level as pedophilia.

somehow i don't think so, Havoc. i might be ignorant in some respects but i'm not a complete fucking moron. it's not quite as simple as you so often like to make out.

"i'm a paedophile which means i like to fantasize having sex with children, but don't worry! i would never really do such a thing, just masturbate over it."

can you really blame them for not wanting to take the 'gamble' with their children, Havoc? can you really blame them?

i didn't know wanting to fuck kids made you a victim. if anything i thought it made you a potential perpetrator. it's no different from rape, because it's no different from rape. simples.

and Havoc about the whole 'being gay used to be illegal' argument, i don't see many kids protesting for the legalization of paedophilia/whatever, do you? also gay couples still have consenting sex (even when it was illegal), otherwise it's rape. since when do kids have sex? since when do they consent to it? in some abstract article clipped out of a shitty magazine? i have no pity for their fucking joke of a plight.

This is a bad comparison because being attracted to the opposite sex is not the same as being attracted to minors who haven’t become mentally mature yet.

Person A is a straight male. He likes having sex with women. For him it isn't a power thing, he just likes sex. He's a normal person.

Person B is also a straight male, but he has a power fetish. He wants to exert control over women. He gets off on violence. He has rape fantasies. He's a potential sexual predator. A pervert. There are lots of Person B in this world. Lots more than you'd think. For whatever reason, most will never act on it. Some do.

Person C is a pedophile. He gets sexually aroused by the thoughts of children. He doesn't like fantasizing about children, because he's not a sociopath. He's fully aware children can't consent. He knows what he desires is morally wrong, so he hides it. To relive stress, he may look up some erotic literature or art. He may even be a lolicon*. Sexuality is a weird thing, so later in life he comes to accept himself to an extent and gets a wife and child. He doesn't have sexual impulses towards his child for the same reason Person A wouldn't have sexual impulses towards their grown daughter. He lives a generally happy life without hurting anyone.

Person D is sick. Maybe it was how he was brought up, maybe it's the gene pool, but for whatever reason, he wants to exert dominance over children. He wants to degrade and humiliate little kids to feel in control of his own life. Maybe he never has the 'courage' to act on these impulses. Maybe he relieves himself by masturbating to real child porn where real children get hurt. It doesn't matter, this guy is still dangerous. He's passively endorsing others who do act on their impulses. He needs to be put away for the protection of our children.

Without even getting into the numerous psychological differences between C and D, my point is that D is far closer to B than he ever is to C. Children can't consent. Any psychologically stable adult understands this. Even if a child says yes, they cannot understand what it means to consent. A child molestor is a rapist. Rape is a crime. An action. You can't arrest people or put them on a list for thought crime, for what they might do because of their sexual preference.

What about these freaks who are in love with horses or tigers? Same deal. Animals can't consent. It's rape. It'll always be fucked up rape. Someone who has crossed the line to rape will always have more in common with other rapists than they ever have with normal people who have a psychological block on rape.

*If Person C ever watched real child porn then they automatically become Person D. Children cannot consent. They are accomplices in the act of rape, making them dangerous.

I'm thoroughly exhausted so I'm very sorry if I said something that didn't make sense. I'll try to get back to you when I return.

Also please understand that I'm not trying to champion the rights of pedophiles. I just don't believe anyone should ever be held accountable for what they feel, and that The Pedophile isn't a malevolent entity that blurs the line between fantasy and reality.

This is picking, but you've just made the automatic assumption that sexual and romantic attraction are the same thing. It's logically believable that someone can be attracted to a child's body while wanting to have a mature emotional partner.

well yeah when you put it like that in a fucking ideal world of course i agree, partially. but in the end i don't agree at all, because you're overcomplicating it with specific examples. broaden the scope. yeah, there are people like person C, but there are also people like person C who are cunts and will eventually molest some kid. maybe they think they can get away with it, maybe it's just a spur of the moment thing, but it still happens.

so person C turns into person D, or maybe B, the point is all paedophiles arent going to match up to that representation, some just really are fucking scumbags, and they dont have to become child molesters to do that. with something like this where the entire human race is being taken into account, the rule of thumb should be 'people aren't nice'. you should assume the worst of every situation, and prepare for it, because there are too many of us to believe otherwise.

person C suddenly becoming person D doesnt do much in the way of representing category C as harmless paedophiles either. i know they're not all the same, but i think the despicable actions of a few far outweigh the silent 'non-actions' of the rest. there will always be someone who goes too far, even if they mean well, and then hey presto you have another incident.

my advice to paedophiles who havent yet lost their souls: stop masturbating over shit that resembles child porn, that'd be a start. i'm sure it doesn't exactly help matters. show some self restraint, do that, and i might start to believe the guilt you apparantly feel. don't do that, and you're just proving me right and are therefore, by definition, a cunt.

Punishing people based on their psychological dysfunctions is a dangerous precedent to set. You're not a violent man by nature, but in theory your psychosis gives you the capacity to be so. Does that mean you shold be preemptively arrested for violent assault?

No, I can't and I won't. Especially if a convicted child molester comes to live in your street you'll always keep an eye on him because he's crossed the line before. But there's a difference between keeping an eye on someone but trying to give them a second chance, and chasing them out of the city with pitchforks and torches.

A sexual attraction to young children is classed as a decease. And with the way the current society handles pedophiles they might as well be a victim. They can try and keep their feelings to themselves for their entire life and be a role model citizen, the moment someone else somehow finds out they will treat that person as a perverted freak of nature. I can see how that would be pretty depressing to go through.

Rape is rape and rape is bad. There's no-one here who disagrees with you on that.

I was referring to the state of mind of the society we live in. Any abnormal sexual desire, be it pedophilia, zoophilia, BDSM, swingers, whatever, is considered something unnatural and sick until it is somehow shown that it isn't as bad as people make it out to be. In the case of pedophilia there's a very large area of 'unknown'. There's the basic notion that sexuality is something meant for adults. Kids are deemed pure as long as they don't see anything related to sexuality. The US is particularly good at this, completely freaking out the moment a child could see a naked breast or a penis. The horror!

There's also the basic notion that children don't HAVE a sexuality and are 100% unable to enjoy sex until they hit puberty, which is non-sense. And of course the most interesting one of all; children are unable to consent because they don't know what they are consenting to. The irony here being that a child doesn't know anything about sex because no-one ever bothers to tell them anything about it other than "it's for grown ups and it's dirty, stay away from it".

Now, I'm not saying it should be legal to have sex with children. Too many people on the planet who would abuse such a thing. But the basic idea that society now has that children are completely unable to enjoy sex or consent to it is inaccurate at best and ideally requires a lot of research to confirm. Unfortunately the general consensus prevents this from happening anytime soon. No credible research institution is going to waste their reputation by handling something as controversial as a child's sexuality.

It's interesting how the comparison with zoophilia is always made when discussing this subject. It provides for some interesting insights.

If a dog is humping someone's leg and the person allows it, is he raping the dog because the dog obviously can not consent? If a girl gets on her knees and the dog jumps onto her is the girl raping the dog? If a man is doing a female horse and the horse pushes back into his motion, is the horse consenting or being raped? If a child is touched sexually and enjoys it, is it still rape? If the child initiates the sexual touch, is that consent?

It's not as black and white as society makes thing out to be. It's a subject no-one dares touch because everyone seems to agree everything is just fine. Out of sight, out of mind.

No, no, rape, yes, no.

It'd be good if you could work out the difference between free will and biological compulsion sometime.

Yeah, because children should not be exposed to it at all. We shelter children from sex because they're too young to understand what sex is. Why shouldn't we shelter them? Explain to me why it should be okay for a 6 year-old to see a naked breast or penis.

Adults are mature enough mentally to see such graphic material. Children are not.

It's not a notion, it's fact and basic common sense. What evidence do you have that could suggest otherwise?

Children still won’t fully know what sex is if we do tell them. They have to actually hit puberty to feel any sexual desire and to get a full comprehension of what sex is. We as adults don’t need sex explained to us, because it comes natural to us.

What research? We know children have no sexuality, it's completely absurd. You need to hit puberty to have any sexual desires. Puberty is when you start reaching sexual maturity, not childhood. You can't gain some form of sexuality during childhood. Why should we research it anyway? So we can try to justify that it can be okay to have sex with children, as long as they can consent and know what it is? I'm not suggesting that's why you would want it researched, but that's the only motive i can see for such research. I can see child molesters trying to use any evidence that children have any form of sexuality to justify their actions.

There is nothing useful or insightful to be had from such research, because there is no such thing as child sexuality.


What the hell are you trying to get at with this statement? Just because the child liked it, that does not make it okay. And yes, it is rape.