UK Government to 'Ban' Porn

[OANST]

I think Nepsotic needs to up his meds.

[Wings of Fire]

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

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.

[MA]

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.

[Wings of Fire]

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.

[OddjobAbe]

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

[Wings of Fire]

I found an explanatory video on the matter for anyone interested



Oh it's NSFW by the way

[Varrok]

Darn, I only watch safe for work paedophilia videos.

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

[MA]

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.

[Wings of Fire]

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' straight male isn't going to indulge in rape porn in the privacy of their own home without constant intrusive surveillance? doesn't seem worth it.

I only had to change two words.

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

[Havoc]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MA]

@ 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.

[Havoc]

@ 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.

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.

[MA]

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

[Manco]

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.

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.

[Wings of Fire]

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 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.

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.

[MA]

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.

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.

[MeechMunchie]

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?

[Havoc]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MeechMunchie]

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?

No, no, rape, yes, no.

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

[mr.odd]

The US is particularly good at this, completely freaking out the moment a child could see a naked breast or a penis. The horror!

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

If a child is touched sexually and enjoys it, is it still rape? If the child initiates the sexual touch, is that consent?

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.

[OddjobAbe]

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.

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).

[Havoc]

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.

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:

and especially since children do respond sexually - very young toddlers have been observed to masturbate

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.

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.

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.

[Slog Bait]

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.

[mr.odd]

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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'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.

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’.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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 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 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.

[Jordan]

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?

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.

[MeechMunchie]

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.

[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.

[STM]

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.

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.

[MA]

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.

[Nepsotic]

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

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