[MA]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.