nonce-sense

[deathboy]

"Child molesters are the sick ones, the ones who prey on children and rape and/or kill them. These people are not truly pedophiles, as they do not love their victims. To them, children are just a nice, easily manipulated hole to put their member in. Children are not people to child molesters, they are things. A true pedophile, if having sex with a child, would be more concerned with giving the child pleasure than his or her own enjoyment. But a child molester, when having sex with a child, is engaging in a form of "glorified" masturbation. This is why so many child molesters kill their prey before or after they've had their way with them... because once their sick raping masturbation has been completed, the child is now only a nuisance to them. So, since they do not love children, they are not true pedophiles."


Well that's ok, then*.



*Obviously, there's nothing wrong at all with people who "love" children in a romantic fashion and find them sexually attractive, so long as they don't break any laws - and I think we can agree that their word on the matter should be sufficient reassurance.

Comments

[ex-froodtheh193.livejournal.com]

And thanks to deathboys l33t linking skills, we are all now being investigated by the police.

[miss-soap.livejournal.com]

Obviously, there's nothing wrong at all with people who "love" children in a romantic fashion and find them sexually attractive, so long as they don't break any laws - and I think we can agree that their word on the matter should be sufficient reassurance.

Is there anything wrong with someone who finds children attractive but doesn't ever physically *do* anything to a child because of their attraction? If one's talking about modern morality - then yes, apparently there is. They're thus guilty of a thought-crime. Ultimately, no-one can *help* how they feel about something/someone, whether that's same sex attraction, being scared of heights or whatever. You can't militate against children being harmed by demonising people who feel themselves attracted to children. There always have been and always will be people who want to harm children, for sexual gratification or otherwise. Whether they're textbook paedophiles or not is largely irrelevant.

[adrasteah.livejournal.com]

We were talking about this yesterday (and also about reactions to Maxine Carr or the boys who killed Jamie Bulger) and the fact that pretty much no research has ever been done into it because psychologists don't want to do it and very few people who felt that way would volunteer the information so it's almost impossible to guage exactly how widespread being attracted to kids is.

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

I am v impressed that you used "militate" and not "mitigate" there. Gold star, head of the class!

[bluekieran.livejournal.com]

I'd have had to look it up if the context hadn't been so clear.

[edwards.livejournal.com]

I think the main thing is acting on your impulses. Society is also one of those highly variable things. It's all very confusing and emotionally charged, making it difficult to actually find a logical pathway. I suspect society demonises people that are attracted to children in order to lessen the damage - perhaps if you were to take all true peadophiles, in the greatest sense of the word, and break it down, you'd have 20% who would never ever act on their inpulses, 70% who might and 10% who would no matter what; the 70% who might are held out of the 10% by societal pressure.

Now, how much does the nature of that pressure alter things. If instead of demonising them, it's just 'in poor taste'. Would that alter it? It is presumably quite analogue and as long as people want to 'protect' children (undoubtedly the same people who are up in arms about this are letting their kids play 18 rated video games, for example) then it's going to be around in one form or another.

People would frown upon a 14 year old girl dating a 40 year old man, but when I was 14, I found 14 year old girls rather attractive, and most of us were vaguely sexually active at that time. Of course that's a rigid definition of paedophile, but I don't recall being overly sexually aware before around 9 (not that I can recall much before then anyway) and certainly 'in context' before I was about 12.

And no, I don't find 14 year old girls attractive, at least not the ones around here. Siani commented that 'the masses must be getting pretty damn ugly when you don't find teenage girls attractive'.

[doktor242.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered why it is that in the past 10 years, I don't feel like I've really changed in a very significant way, but if I find a 16 year old girl attractive, it's creepy?

I mean, it's not usually the case that as we get older, we continue to become attracted to older people, else dirty old me would be trying to look up old ladies' skirts, rather than schoolgirls... yet, I feel an uneasiness walking past my former High School and noticing what is perfectly natural for a male human to notice.

The fact is, social pressures work. I'm 28, and i'd never even consider touching a girl under 18 (hell at this point, under 21.) From a biological perspective, this makes no real sense, as any girl that's done with puberty is biologically able... however society (and a better understanding of developmental psychology) has put these females off limits, and that alone makes me feel like they are no longer attractive. I wonder if anyone's done any realy studying of this phenomenon?

[doktor242.livejournal.com]

note: I meant to say 'dirty old MEN', not 'dirty old ME'.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

Is there anything wrong with someone who finds children attractive but doesn't ever physically *do* anything to a child because of their attraction?

The implication is one of increased risk. If I declare that I have a predeliction towards certain things (sexual impulses being one of our species' greatest, strongest urges), the realisation of which is an abhorrent act, it's not atypical to become worried that at some point, my ability to control my impulses will not be up to the task.

Humans are notoriously poor at impulse control with regards to "love" and "sex", so being aware of someone's desires leads you to worry.

Sexual relations with presexual humans is taboo because, like most taboos, ultimately, it results in a descreased likelihood of survival for the group, through possible damage to the children involved or (in the case of same-family relationships) damage to the gene pool.


If one's talking about modern morality - then yes, apparently there is. They're thus guilty of a thought-crime. Ultimately, no-one can *help* how they feel about something/someone, whether that's same sex attraction, being scared of heights or whatever. You can't militate against children being harmed by demonising people who feel themselves attracted to children. There always have been and always will be people who want to harm children, for sexual gratification or otherwise. Whether they're textbook paedophiles or not is largely irrelevant.

I wasn't suggesting that people should be punished for thought-crimes. I agree that senseless demonisation leads to pushing consideration and the possibility of control underground.

Comparing homosexuality or a fear of heights, though, is not entirely valid, as (in a general sense), neither has such capacity to lead to the harm of an individual who can choose not to be involved (in, say, a gay relationship). Someone with suicidal urges wouldn't give me cause for concern for anyone but themselves (unless they were a train driver, perhaps). Impulses towards cannibalism, however, would raise flags because again, the subject in question leads to the harm of others. Leaving aside the issue of people who consent to being meals.

That site, to me, is worrying because it tries to normalise that which is potentially abhorrent.

When I see (as I have) comparable sites about bestiality, cannibalism, or rape fantasy enthusiasts, I feel equally uneasy about the people involved because of the concern at an increased chance of any of these people acting out their desires.

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's statistically significant; after all how many people have say daydreamed about committing acts of violents against the idiots on their daily commute/in their office/in the queue at the post office/whatever and how many actually do?

The mid-teens is a grey area because it wasn't so long ago in evolutionary terms that reproducing at that age was perfectly normal, in fact it still is outside the developed world. That's why the law needs revising; if a 40 year old wants to have sex with a 12 year old something is probably wrong, if a 16 year old wants to have sex with a 15 year old, well, why should the law need to be involved at all, its a matter for the individuals involved and their parents, no-one else.

[apiphile.livejournal.com]

What I find amusing is that the paedophile who goes through their entire life not acting on their urges - and I imagine that there are a fair few - is actually a more laudable human being than Joe Average in some respects, because they've had to learn self control, and adhere to it rigidly, knowing that "I was drunk" or "it was only the once" won't cut it in those situations, ever.

Then again I'm usually the one prancing around pointing out the difference between thought and action in these discussions. Think how many of us are murderers, in our heads.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

Humans are notoriously poor at impulse control with regards to "love" and "sex"

Nothing special there, though. Humans are also notoriously poor at impulse control with regards to "hamburgers" and "fries".

[aliasrob.livejournal.com]

Quick! Call the Paedofinder general! Burn her!

[miss-soap.livejournal.com]

You are my colleague, AICM5UKP. This was pretty much her response. 'You're not with us, you're one of them' type of attitude.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

Which, hopefully, you'll know is as far from the truth as I am from your Daily Mail types.

[dreamburnt.livejournal.com]

It's very good point, but pedophilia doesn't occur in a vacuum--it's usually accompanied by other significant psychological problems. (IOW: normal healthy adults don't want to bone children.)

The way the thought-crime angle is supposed to work in the US is that anything purely fictional will come under the protection of free speech, while any kiddie-porn depicting real children is illegal. There's some blurriness--you could argue over someone tweaking non-exploitive pictures into porn with Photoshop--and of course there are bunch of local governments who love to slap consenting adults with jail-time or fines for dealing in 100% normal, vanilla consenting-adult pr0n.

There was a case where a convicted child molester was defended, on the First Amendment angle, for writing stories about raping and killing children. I believe he wound up nailed because the terms of his parole forbade him from possessing any sort of pornography involving children, which the jury decided the stories constituted.

The idea that someone can be criminalized merely for thinking something unpopular, or writing fiction about it, is still quite chilling. Especially if you're American and read about the survey that says something like 60% of all high school seniors think "the First Amendment goes too far" and that "the government should have more control over what the media reports". (Let's all cross our fingers now and hope these kids are the same 60+% who aren't going to vote.)

In conclusion: Thought-crime is scary, but so are child molesters.

[spikedcandy.livejournal.com]

ah shit.. oh well its my parents computer... but how disturbing was that anyway?

[madkatsjournal.livejournal.com]

Isn't this just a lot like working class nobodies saying they're chavs without understanding exactly what the connotations are, then saying they're proud to be one?

[excy.livejournal.com]

hey, you pinched my link ;)

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

sorry :D

I opened the window without noting where I nicked it from :)

[excy.livejournal.com]

That's alright. no one cared when I posted it ;)

Maybe all my friends list are members.

[edwards.livejournal.com]

Oh good God. Is this some sort of joke?

Can we expect to see pedophiles taking their quarry, sorry, lovers out to romantic meals and so forth?

I notice a male slant there, too. Can't women be pedophiles?

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

to be fair, there are links to female-orientated sites there.

[edwards.livejournal.com]

Oh, good. Can't have a sexist paedophile advocacy website.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

heavens, no! - it's all about inclusionism!

[messyscribbles.livejournal.com]

Pretty much all 'registered' peadophiles are male; I have the statistics somewhere at work I think.

: )

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

the vast majority are, yes. is that because it's so much more common for men to be attracted to children, or because our society disapproves much more of men attracted to children than women attracted to children?

i've noticed a real double standard there - a 21 year old man who has sex with a 13 year old girl is far more likely to be charged than a 21 year old woman who has sex with a 13 year old boy.

despite that, i suspect that it's more likely the former.

[messyscribbles.livejournal.com]

When I say 'registered' I simply mean caught so I guess I agree more with the first half of your first statement. However, I do agree in principal with your second point wih the example you've given; the man would be seen (in society at least as the law in the Uk is the same for both) to be some kind of pervert where as with the woman most peoples' reaction to this (maybe just mainly male?) would be 'lucky bastard'. There attempt at distinguishing between molesters and peadophiles and the term love isn't strictly true. Certainly in the cases I have worked on, a paedophile can usually see no comparison between a six month old baby and a twenty one year old man or woman. So that is where they 'may' love a six month old baby in the same way they would a twenty one year old but most know what they are doing is wrong and therefore fully aware of the physical damage they are causing. Most however are in a state of denial and most are extremely intelligent and certainly with slightly older children are very clever at mind games to keep children quiet for years and years. Sorry about the essay; a simple yes I agree would have done the trick : ) Still; nice talking to you.

[bluekieran.livejournal.com]

I think playdates are more likely, no?

[privateskylark.livejournal.com]

Just shoot them all, no questions asked.

[apiphile.livejournal.com]

That's hysterical, really.

[markeris.livejournal.com]

They should add "And Nonces" to the end there for a much more satisfying Acronym.

[shadow27.livejournal.com]

I've been debating with someone about the Static-X guy for the last day or so. Apprently I was being "moraly subjetive" in my assertion that 40 year olds should go to jail for having sex tiwth 14 year olds (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ego_likeness/137676.html?view=976076#t976076). Good to have it all cleared up.

[failed-bard.livejournal.com]

The 14-18 range is very subjective in Canada. It's not illegal to have sex with someone in this range unless you in some way violate the other minor related laws, like giving them alcohol. If their parents object they have the option of pressing charges, but they almost never go through.

They're trying to pass a bill through now to raise the age of consent to 18, though it will probably be 16 by the time the politicking is done, if it goes through at all.

In one case in Manitoba, a man got away with having sex with the 13 year old that baby-sat his kids, because she was mature enough to do house-chores, and they intended to continue the relationship once she turned 14, and it would be legal. Fucking liberal judges are worse then lawyers. Don't want to hurt the criminals feelings by telling them what they did was wrong.

wwm.

[robotochan.livejournal.com]

"If we find out that you're molesting children or engaging in any other illegal activity, you will be kicked out of the organization."

Fuck I'd better not molest children, I'll be kicked out of Pedo club! Shit!!! :)