I'm not defending Havoc. At all. But I think there's no problem with a child being educated about sex, or with them seeing a naked human body (as long as it's not in their vicinity with dubious intent). In fact, I think children would probably be safer from sexual predators should they be taught the basics of human reproduction and sexual behaviour, since they would have a clearer idea of what is right and what isn't (and especially since children do respond sexually - very young toddlers have been observed to masturbate - which could add to their confusion should they fall victim to a paedophile).

It should be researched, first and foremost, for the pursuit of knowledge. Assuming something to be true has never done anything to help us progress as a society or as humankind. Shouting at the top of your longs that children have no sexuality and slamming the book closed does not make it true.

There have been many individual low level (no media national media attention) cases where children were sexually involved with an adult and freely admitted to authorities that they enjoyed the interaction.

And since you love facts to much, this is a commonly known one:

I'm not saying it should be researched to justify pedophilia. Not at all. It needs to be researched because currently the perception we have of children's sexuality is wrong. Simple as that. And no, I don't know how wrong it is. Hence... research.

Even if a child does turn out to have very active sexuality it doesn't instantly mean it should be stimulated. If it exists it is important that it is documented if only for the sake of knowing it exists.

It wasn't a statement, it was a series of legitimate questions. I was curious to hear the answers and the reasoning.

Again, I'm not promoting pedosexuality here, still just curious to the reasoning. Why is it not okay to do something that a child obviously enjoys? I don't see how there is something wrong with that act itself since no-one is being harmed in that particular moment.

However as the child grows up they might learn that what they did at a younger age is deemed 'wrong' by society. As a result they might get a completely different view on what was at the time an enjoyable experience. They might start seeing themselves as victim who was abused.
So... IF the child grows up to regret a sexual encounter with an adult, is it not society's fault for constantly telling the child how wrong and disgusting it was?

I know there's not a lot of people here (if any) who are open minded enough to calmly discuss this subject. I don't mind being on the controversial side of an argument. But I'm spotting a trend where, whenever this subject comes up, the only response I seem to get is "NO! You're wrong! Go away!". If you want to tell me I'm wrong, please explain why I'm wrong and I'll gladly adjust my opinion and views.

I'm not going to say much on the topic at hand but I'm not convinced children are so stupid and detached they can't understand what sex is or consent or sexuality at all. My reasoning being HEY I remember being a kid and my sexuality and interests all became apparent by the time I was 4 at the very latest. I knew a good handful of people during elementary school who were completely aware of what sex was and the shit that came with it. We understood the concept of consent. I knew 3rd graders who were already experimenting sexually behind their parents' and every adults' backs because we all knew that they would treat their behavior like it was the end of the world. But we were comfortable with sexuality as a whole and we understood.

The only reason anyone I knew regretted anything that was done was because of people 20+ years older than us bashing it into our heads that all forms of sexual interaction are HORRIBLE AND WRONG until you're the legal age of consent, but even then it's still AWFUL AND SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE and you should always be ashamed of everything you've done ever. They didn't regret the actual action they just wanted to stop being treated like they committed murder for being sexually involved as a child.

And before anyone says shit about what I just said, I am NOT by any means defending child porn or children being sexually involved/active.

Also holy shit children seeing nudity isn't the god damn end of the world. Breasts aren't inherently sexual, that's a societal thing. It's possible to see a nude figure and it not be sexual in the slightest. We shouldn't have such a tight fucking rope on this shit because frankly it just makes people condemn the idea of sex even more than they already do because they're so convinced it's like the worst fucking thing you can ever do. Don't teach people to be afraid or bothered by it, teach them to be safe if they chose to engage in it. Fuck.

Alright, I've never thought of it that way. You make an excellent point and i agree with that.

First, I’m not shouting at the top of my lungs. Do you see any exclamation points in there? If my post came off as standoffish, I didn’t mean it to. I just find the idea of researching child sexuality to be ridiculous.

Okay, I’ll admit I was too hasty shooting down the idea of research. I guess I just found the idea of it too absurd and disgusting, so it affected my feelings on the subject. I still don’t believe there is any form of sexuality in children and until I see any real evidence, I’m not changing my stance.

So what? The adults should still be imprisoned for it. There was probably a lot of manipulation from the adult as usual. Just because the child liked it, does not make it okay. That’s not exactly proof of child sexuality
Child molesters are very persuasive and manipulative with children. I’m not saying children are ‘too stupid’ or ‘detached’ to understand sex and consent to it, but they’re certainly not mature enough on an emotional level to do so. (To give consent)

I’ll admit I did not know this. But to what extent though? Can the toddler actually have an orgasm or is this just simple arousal?
I didn’t say you did either, I was just saying I can see child molesters using this to justify molesting children. They try to do it with their victims by passing off what they’re doing as ‘love’.

Fine, perhaps it’s worth researching evidence of child sexuality, but I highly doubt it’s very active and on the level of an adult.



Okay, I jumped the gun on that one too soon, but the way the question was presented gave some red flags.

It’s wrong because children aren’t mentally/physically/emotionally mature enough to have sex or even be stimulated in any sexual manner. Just because it felt good to the child does not make it okay. This is the same reason why it’s not okay for 40 year-old men to have sex with 16 year-old girls(and vice versa gender wise). Even if it’s consensual, they’re not mature enough emotionally and mentally to give consent. Isn’t that why we say you must be 18 to give consent anyway?
No, it’s the adults fault for manipulating and brainwashing them into thinking it was okay to begin with. We don’t blame the children for getting caught up with the adult; we blame the adult because the child it too young to know any better and the adult knows the full extent of what he’s/she’s doing. We have to assume here that the adults are manipulating the children, which most child molesters tend to do.

I apologize if I said anything that was standoffish and aggressive. But you should know that this particular subject is going to incite some negative responses as with any controversial topic. I understand a lot of the points you made in this topic and I can see why you would have your point of view the way it is. I don’t agree with it one bit, but I understand.

I think you're wrong here. The age of consent in other countries is lower than 18 in some places, and can even be as low as 12 in others. In the UK it is 16. If both a 16 year old and 40 year old consented to having sex, what is so wrong with that? As long as they are safe they are not harming anyone. At 16 years old you are very likely to be developing sexually and you are likely to be wanting to experiment. I agree with people doing things at this age than at, say, 14 like a lot of people I went to school with did.

When it comes to children I don't think they have the knowledge and mindset to understand what they are doing. The whole subject is kind of squick and a lot of people would rather avoid it. In my opinion children shouldn't be worrying about sexual things until they're older and maturer. Sure, teach them about sex, don't hide naked people from them (they are not sexualised until people make them out to be) and just allow them to live a happy childhood until they are old enough to properly understand what everything means.

Children may well experience sexual arousal and be capable of sexual stimulation. But until they reach puberty and hormones have fully done their work, they do not understand, cannot understand, and will not understand, no matter how labouriously it is explained, the concept of sexual desire. There is a difference between becoming aroused when a sexual situation presents itself and acting deliberately to engineer said "desirable" situation.

A child may understand that sex feels good, but because they are not neurologically wired the way that a sexually mature person is, they don't understand that sex is something to be desired, competed for, and often achieved by coercion and violence. This means they cannot understand the mindset of a child molester, or what the molester wants from them. The power held by this pair is severely imbalanced, making any relationship they form inherently abusive. The child becomes a slave to the molester's authority.

And that's why paedophilia is so squick: It's not just a crime of rape, but of exploitation.

very good point, but paedophilia isn't just a mental illness or fetish or whatever, and i find the very notion insulting. where i come from paedophiles are the scum of the Earth because they are bad fucking people. paedophilia shouldn't be taken lightly and there will never be a day where they're deemed poor, misunderstood souls. if you get enjoyment out of an action which is completely wrong, you don't deserve sympathy.

i can be violent but i don't enjoy it. the only emotion clouding my sense of judgement at that moment would be rage. doesn't make it right, but it still isn't pleasurable and gives me an incentive never to do it again. pleasure gives you an incentive to do it again. i mean who would be next under mental health? rapists? if i'd have met a fucking paedo whilst in the nuthouse i would have beaten ten shades of shit out of them and gone to prison happily, and would most likely have received congratulations at the other end. fuck wrapping them in cotton wool.

a sexual attraction to children is wrong, end of story. it goes against nature, that's why we have fucking puberty. i see what you mean by "you can't punish someone for a crime they haven't committed" and i agree, but why admit to being a paedophile if you havent even done anything wrong? wouldn't that just breed distrust?

for example: rape is wrong. if you have a 'thing' for rape i would have thought it best to keep it to yourself, not label yourself a pseudo-rapist. i have psychosis and was medicated for it for years, now i'm off them and cope with it myself. are self-confessed innocent paedos treated/medicated for paedophilia? should rapists get similar treatment? child molesters? i know their victims do.

so what about paedophiles who haven't actually done anything wrong? well i'd look into the reasons why they believe they're paedophiles. then i'd probably disagree with said reasons, tell them they're a bunch of fucking idiots and that they're perfectly normal human beings. they haven't crossed that threshold to becoming something i so completely despise, and they're morons for labelling themselves with something so degrading.

we're all human and we all think bad things sometimes, but the difference between those who should be labelled paedos and those who admit to it without proof through some form of guilt or self-hatred is this: actions. they speak louder than words and always will, it's those that indulge in sickening actions that should be ostracised and spat on, for the sake of future generations. not those who believe they are, yet have never acted on it. in that case i must be the biggest, sickest fucking serial killer on the planet with the amount of different people ive kidnapped, tortured and murdered in my mind's eye.

seriously, if you haven't done anything wrong you're not a paedophile. paedophiles are hated for their actions, not their thoughts. if you haven't acted you can't be hated and are therefore a normal person and not a paedo. there's no big secret because theres nothing to be kept a secret. you can continue with your life free from unwarranted guilt.

psychotics generally have some form of detatchment from reality. a simplification of my own would be being totally desensitised to absolutely everything around me, i've been told it's how i learned to cope. beating someone up and kiddy-fiddling are two completely different things. if i completely snapped in a worst case scenario people would be dead, followed by myself. worst case scenario with a paedophile is years of abuse with different victims. one bad turn deserves another when you give up on yourself. i think the latter would be worse.

paedophilia a desease? what a bunch of wank. bull. shit. i'll believe that when i'm rotting in my stinking, sludge-filled grave. and by that i mean i'll never believe it.

for the record BDSM and swingers are considered fine by most, all to do with consenting adults. paedophilia and zoophilia doesn't involve consenting adults, it involves children and animals. also i agree about nothing being wrong with looking at the human body for education or art etc, but the moment you throw sex in it does become wrong.

well what do we do? let's imagine we abolished the age of consent and just let everyone have at it. so now kids are suddenly allowed to give 'consent', but they still can't drink, smoke, drive, work, vote, and so on. they still go to school though. maybe that's the reason why it isn't legal for children to take part in any sexual activities.

they're kids. still growing up, still learning, trying to find their place in this world, still learning about this world. you should love and protect them, not stick your peepee in them. that's why we don't have paedo conventions.

The thing is, you're actually making your own definitions for things that already have definitions. Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder. It is a fetish. You don't ever have to act on it to be one. You can't help the way your brain is wired, as other people have said (and you seem to have just ignored them so far so I'm probably wasting my time here), you can't lock someone up for a crime they haven't committed. It also doesn't help that the media brands every child molester as a paedophile when that's not the case. For example, a child molester may commit such crimes because of an absence of adult partners plus existing psychosis. Ian Brady wouldn't necessarily be considered a paedophile though he was definitely a child molester.

That's not to say I think paedophiles should just be ignored or left to their own devices. I honestly think that for the good of society, self-confessed paedophiles should be monitored (without invading their privacy so much that life becomes stressful) whilst at the same time, the correct psychological/ medical circles are informed so that they might try and administer help to try and correct their illness.

Convicted paedophiles that have committed acts of child molestation should be sent to prison and never let back out into the public. They're too dangerous to be re-introduced into society because our medical understanding of the disorder isn't yet refined to the stage that we can 'cure' it. I also believe that scientists should be able to conduct humane tests on these criminals for the purpose of finding the reasons as to why these people have a disposition for children in the hope that they can find a cure.

so paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder/fetish. does that make it okay? no it doesn't. does admitting it but never actually doing anything make it okay? no it doesn't, because it'd be better to just not say anything at all and still not do anything.

anyone who willingly labels themselves a paedophile is a fucking idiot, because from that point on they either live life as a good person but still have to put up with the social distrust, angst and so on, or they do do something fucked up and truly condemn themselves to their label. that's society's fault.

looking at hentai/loli/whatever doesn't make you a paedophile. looking at real child porn or acting on those impulses does. by labelling yourself with such a strong and controversial tag you're condemning yourself to pre-judgement and social isolation before you've even done anything wrong. people keep saying "you can't punish someone for something they haven't done" and like i keep fucking saying, i agree, but they're doing that themselves when they say "HEY GUYS I'M A PAEDO" before they've truly done anything wrong. why alarm everyone with that? why do i need to know? should i be watching you very, very closely? why say it? why put the thought there if they truly mean to be a good person?

if you genuinely felt like you might not be able to control yourself and wanted outside help then fair enough, label yourself. if you've never actually masturbated over child porn or children or committed a relative crime or done anything wrong, you're not a paedophile. i don't see how someone can call themselves that nowadays if they've never actually done anything wrong. waste of time and taxpayers money.

in relation to that, i suppose i'd better get down the cop shop and let them know i could be a potential murderer so they can tag me and keep an eye on me. better safe than sorry.

Unless it has Chris Morris in it, which Crashpunk's post did.

Or Fat Mat.

...oh hey, seems like I forgot to check this topic for a while. Anything new since my last post?

*takes a look*

oh god.

You think that's bad? I've been away since Thursday. Also, Chris Morris.

Oh, so could you make a TL;DR version? Awesome!

Yes. Peadophiles are good people and child molesters are horrible and Chris Morris is better than Chuck Norris.

Clearly an accurate and impartial summary of the thread's content.

yeah. paedo's are good people. let's give them all big, sloppy kisses and send them on their way, the rascals.

I hate this thread and I want it to go away.

Again that's a pretty big assumption. If they are capable of sexual arousal would they not also be capable of understanding sexual desire if they were explained what the arousal means? For that matter, isn't sexual arousal and desire basically the same thing in this context?

You are right, that wasn't the most appropriate collection of examples. Though I do have an interesting observation when asking people what they think about zoophilia. Roughly half the people will tell you it's not their cup of tea, but have no objection as long as the animal isn't being hurt/enjoying itself. The other half will tell you it's flat out disgusting and animal abuse. The original point I was trying to make being that there is no uniform opinion on either subject (pedo or zoo). The law might make both illegal, but many different people have many different opinions.

Yet it is nature that creates the sexual attraction to begin with. So that creates somewhat of a problem with your theory. One could wonder if there is some sort of evolutionary reason for pedophilia to emerge or if it may not be as unnatural as people seem to believe. I think there are plenty of animals that show signs of sexual interest long before they are sexually mature.

No-one willingly labels themselves. But I'm sure there comes a point in a pedo's life where he can't ignore the facts anymore. There's no point in pretending to be something your not (or pretending to not be something you are). That doesn't mean they go public with that information, just that they have decided to come to terms with their situation.

Regardless of how the relationship between the two developed (natural, with 'consent' or by manipulation), what if the child genuinely enjoyed the interaction, continued to enjoy the interaction for as long as it lasted and had happy memories of the interaction years down the line? Would you believe that insisting he/she was abused and raped is a good thing? You're essentially taking a good memory and turning it into a nightmare just because you believe that's how it happened.

It's good to discuss controversial topics every now and again even if the majority of people are completely against it. The discussion allows for some insights people might otherwise not have on their own. I'm a big believer in thinking for yourself and having your own opinion instead of blindly assuming that the opinion of the masses must be the right one. If my controversial topics and questions get you to think and consider things you didn't consider before then I've done my part.

Out of sight, out of mind. :happy:

You know you could always just not open the thread?

On second thoughts I'll leave this until tomorrow.

On my 18th birthday, when I reached adultery, I had a sexual attraction to a girl one month younger than me and therefore, not adult. Was I a paedophile? Where's the line?

If the age of consent is 18 where you live you would technically be a pedophile I suppose. Though the more accurate definition would be ephebophile since she's a teenager.

In reality of course it shouldn't matter since the age difference is negligible, but 18 year olds have been arrested, charged and even jailed for sleeping with a 17 year old. Not to long ago I believe there was a case where an 18 year old guy was convicted of producing child pornography because his 17 year old girlfriend sent him erotic pictures of herself which he had on his cell phone.

There's a decent amount of places that allow some level of cushion when it comes to sexual relations around the legal adult age. It's usually about a ~3 year difference if you're a legal adult and your partner is underage. You should probably check your country's consent laws.

Also, pedophilia is being attracted to children. Older teens aren't children and they rarely have the body of one.

Semi related, I had a friend I met when he was 13. He called himself a pedophile openly because he was sexually active and mostly attracted to children and child-like people. He didn't understand why people would lash out at him because of it. After all, this word did describe his attractions almost perfectly. Realize, he had JUST turned 13 years old and he had not yet hit puberty. Years later, long after he had, he had no sexual desires towards children or child-like people at all anymore. He's attracted to people who are sexually mature and the thought of being attracted to a child disgusts him.

There are still people far older than him that KNEW how old he was at the time he was going around that condemn him for being attracted to kids while he himself was a kid.

I'm pretty certain that for people who remain attracted to children long after reaching sexual maturity, whatever switch was supposed to flip to make you more attracted to other sexually mature people never flipped.

Still ongoing cognitive development?

lol

stupid questions get stupid answers.

giraffe.

honestly, some of you guys would argue the colour of fucking shite. it's almost commendable. but not in this case.

thanks MA

Once I saw a white dogshit. I'm not even kidding. Solid white.

That comes from a dog that was fed bones.

I once saw some fox shit that had an intact pigeon intestine trailing out of the end. That thing really ought to chew its food.

As for the other thing, I was using "desire" as shorthand for "intent to manipulate a person of interest so as to make them sexually available to you". You know, like I said in the bit of the post Havoc obviously didn't read.

lol havuc u so crazee

You have no idea.