Police arrest 184 in worldwide pedophile ring: Europol

[dworx]

Sheather: I'm glad we agree on this. I find it sad that people who think they're enlightened and tolerant (towards homosexuals and other nationalities) can be so disgusted with paedophiles. We (as a society) need to integrate them into society AND protect children. If we can land on the moon, we can do this too. Maybe some kind of animated pornography amnesty? Maybe Japan has the problem solved?

Edit: Here are the definitions of the words. So there are some people here (who shall not be mentioned by name) who are not even using the words correctly.

paedophile or esp ( US ) pedophile (ˈpiːdəʊˌfaɪl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

n

a person who is sexually attracted to children

child molester

noun

a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a boy as the passive partner [syn: pederast]

 

I think you are wrong here, what we need is death penalty, you put down curr dogs and these people are curr dogs not to be integrated because eventually they will bite someone. Children are not sex objects - that in any form is repugnant.

Edited March 21, 2011 by dworx

[Sheather]

Do you believe that every pedophile has a collection of child porn? Because this simply isn't the case... How do you know?

I can say I know from knowing one and by being very, very afraid that I might be one, for a short time not too long ago.

Well, as some of us have already said, not every pedophile is a child molester... Deal with it... again How do you know?

Same reason.

You're taking the negative image perpetrated by media and using it as a blanket to cover all people under that label dworx? In other words, you're taking the characteristics of some, and placing it over all. Using the same technique, I could say that all vegetarians are mass murderers, or that all men are rapists.

You're nitpicking and trouble mongering, and it simply sounds foolish.

Unless you are asking without preamble or judgement, how synch actually does know this information. In which case I assume he has reasons, but I think it is a conclusion that can be reached through common sense. (not so common these days, unfortunately)

EDIT: My only response to that latest comment is that I find your method of thinking both repulsive and disgusting.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sheather

[dworx]

It is people like you who I'm talking about when I say most people are closed minded fucking morons Meeka. You think paedophilia is a disease? Or a choice? It is as much a choice as homosexuality, because it IS a sexuality. A paedophile is NOT by definition a CHILD MOLESTER - and I find it offensive that you say that paedophiles and child molsterers are the same thing. Much, if not most of abuse to children originates in "normal people".

My comparison of paedophilia and homosexuality was perfectly acceptable. If you'll fucking read it you'll find I'm not linking the two at all, just COMPARING - as in they share a similar trait.

You sicken me.

Postscript - I went a little off the rails there, I'll admit. Synchromesh and ballzac - It's good to see some people make use of their rational minds. Ballzac raises a good point about short sentences too...

 

Mate what the fuck is wrong with you Anyone who looks at a child as something sexual is a sick fuck regardless of name no-one gives a fuck about what these sickos are called and the fact that you are offended because someone looks at them both as being one and same offends me. You make yourself a sick fuck with them in my book because you defend them - that's sick and offensive, and I am sure most of society would view your words here the same way.Don't speak about closed minded when everything you seem to post is about grammatical error, again who gives a fuck it's communication buddy and we all understand it....

[dworx]

I can say I know from knowing one and by being very, very afraid that I might be one, for a short time not too long ago.

Same reason.

You're taking the negative image perpetrated by media and using it as a blanket to cover all people under that label dworx? In other words, you're taking the characteristics of some, and placing it over all. Using the same technique, I could say that all vegetarians are mass murderers, or that all men are rapists.

You're nitpicking and trouble mongering, and it simply sounds foolish.

Unless you are asking without preamble or judgement, how synch actually does know this information. In which case I assume he has reasons, but I think it is a conclusion that can be reached through common sense. (not so common these days, unfortunately)

EDIT: My only response to that latest comment is that I find your method of thinking both repulsive and disgusting.

 

Mate you truly are an outstanding individual and I think you need to re-assess your sexuality bud, maybe your fear is founded in fact, If you have had that fear you have had the thought.

[dworx]

If I was battling something like that I think I would plead for castration...

 

I think this is here for you Sheather, hey it's just a suggestion!bIt's your battle - not mine

[Sheather]

Mate what the fuck is wrong with you

Nothing at all.

You make yourself a sick fuck with them in my book because you defend them

I defend those who have committed no wrongdoing.

Don't speak about closed minded when everything you seem to post is about grammatical error

If you refer to my posts differentiating between paedophile and child molester, I make them because the "grammatical error" conveys a fundamental difference in meaning, and that though it is communication like you say, communication is not always clear, and we do not all understand it. This seems quite clear by the fact I have to even write this.

maybe your fear is founded in fact, If you have had that fear you have had the thought.

Maybe it is. You are the last person I will ask for confirmation, you are the least of the dust beneath my heel.

It's your battle - not mine

I disagree. This battle affects all. Every individual that fits within civilisation should be aware and participant in this battle.

As for the suggestion, it is a tad impolite to tell someone to castrate themselves when you do not know even the slightest thing about their person.

Check it: Your lilting words have inspired me to verse!

Do not fret about my lost time, took but minutes to write this rhyme.

Dworx, the ever shining star;

Among his peers, exemplar!

To wit, or words, there's never care;

His logic sometimes hardly there;

Abrasive, abusive and pretty thick;

I think Dworx should suck a dick!

[synchromesh]

Uhm. Isn't that Cuddy? In which case, not a stripper, but dressed as a school girl, and stripping...

 

As in an actress? In any case, yeah, it's not a real stripper. Point still stands though...

dworx - "Do you believe that every pedophile has a collection of child porn? Because this simply isn't the case... How do you know?"

Because I looked under all of their beds? Seriously though, do you believe that everybody who's read Mein Kampf is a nazi?

"Well, as some of us have already said, not every pedophile is a child molester... Deal with it... again How do you know?"

Read the thread ya lazy bastard.

"In other words, you'd torture the person(s) for the rest of your life? That's dark, man... I think like most parents feel he is saying they would be dead, dying a very painful death."

Good for them. Maybe they should think about something else for once...

Edited March 21, 2011 by synchromesh

[dworx]

Nothing at all.

I defend those who have committed no wrongdoing.

If you refer to my posts differentiating between paedophile and child molester, I make them because the "grammatical error" conveys a fundamental difference in meaning, and that though it is communication like you say, communication is not always clear, and we do not all understand it. This seems quite clear by the fact I have to even write this. Not necessary mate if people don't understand they ask

Maybe it is. You are the last person I will ask for confirmation, you are the least of the dust beneath my heel. Why would I care where you hold me in your value system, you who defend pedophiles.

I disagree. This battle affects all. Every individual that fits within civilisation should be aware and participant in this battle.

As for the suggestion, it is a tad impolite to tell someone to castrate themselves when you do not know even the slightest thing about their person. Mate I didn't say that! It's just an ASSumptiom of yours, I know enough about you now thanks.

Check it: Your lilting words have inspired me to verse!

Do not fret about my lost time, took but minutes to write this rhyme.

Dworx, the ever shining star;

Among his peers, exemplar!

To wit, or words, there's never care;

His logic sometimes hardly there;

Abrasive, abusive and pretty thick;

I think Dworx should suck a dick!

Whos a clever boy then!

You might be smart with words mate but you can't communicate! The battle is within for you, my battle is nothing like your battle, you keep fighting for your pedo friends.... with your stupid rhymes - idiot

Edited March 21, 2011 by dworx

[dworx]

As in an actress? In any case, yeah, it's not a real stripper. Point still stands though...

dworx - "Do you believe that every pedophile has a collection of child porn? Because this simply isn't the case... How do you know?"

Because I looked under all of their beds? Seriously though, do you believe that everybody who's read Mein Kampf is a nazi? That is not an answer to the question. How do you know they don't? It's not my beleif in question.

"Well, as some of us have already said, not every pedophile is a child molester... Deal with it... again How do you know?"

Read the thread ya lazy bastard. Oh I have read it, but I will still look at either of the two as the same, and never defend the other, If you think about or fanatsize about having sex with a six yr old your no better than someone who does it.

"In other words, you'd torture the person(s) for the rest of your life? That's dark, man... I think like most parents feel he is saying they would be dead, dying a very painful death."

Good for them. Maybe they should think about something else for once... Like????

[synchromesh]

* Well, it is, because it's a bullshit belief. Do you also believe that every serial killer has a photo collection of dead bodies?

* So we're all equal to murderers then? Because you can't tell me that you've never imagined killing anybody before...

"The mind is just a reflex organ. It reacts to everything. Fills your head with millions of random thoughts a day. None of those thoughts reveal any more about you than a freckle does at the end of your nose."

- Peaceful Warrior

* Anything and everything that doesn't revolve around fear or current affair programs?

[dworx]

* Well, it is, because it's a bullshit belief. Do you also believe that every serial killer has a photo collection of dead bodies? Ok to answer the question no I don't beleive either scenario, some might I am sure but as with normal people, I am sure they are all different, but then I never said I beleived that did I? but that doesn't answer the question as to how you know? Are you in corrections?, I doubt it, Maybe you align yourself with pedophiles?

* So we're all equal to murderers then? Because you can't tell me that you've never imagined killing anybody before... I am sure I could tell you that I have never had the thought, I think we have that capability yes. Man on the whole is an being of destruction.

"The mind is just a reflex organ. It reacts to everything. Fills your head with millions of random thoughts a day. None of those thoughts reveal any more about you than a freckle does at the end of your nose."

- Peaceful Warrior

* Anything and everything that doesn't revolve around fear or current affair programs? I

I have no fear of pedophiles and I don't watch current affair programs [if you are referring to things like today tonight etc I just have a hard time beleiving any normal person would actually defend someone who fantasizes about having sex with a child 2yrs old 6yrs old 11,12?

Edited March 21, 2011 by dworx

[dworx]

How nice of the people here to feel so strongly at my lack of understanding of a word.

And the insinuations as to my intelligence, here's a fact for you mob - I never finished high school. Doesn't mean that I am a moron. Nor does it mean that anyone should feel contempt for me merely because I misunderstood the word *pedophile*.

I'm not at all ashamed of the things that I do not know, but what I do know is that alot of people on forums misinterpret things and would seek to humiliate those that disagree with them or misunderstand.

So you tell me who is the enlightened one in that regard? The one who is ignorant through no fault of their own, yet still able to admit their mistake, or the one who would direct negativity towards someone because their ignorance *offends* them?

If ignorance offends you so much Sheather, perhaps you could seek to understand that by insulting the ignorant ones, you are shutting them down and subsequently teaching them nothing positive. Out of everything you posted to me, only a few words have stuck in my mind *fucking moron*.

What has that achieved in the scale of things?

Oh and a final word, because I will respond no further in this *war on my ignorance*. At no stage did I seek to anger anyone, nor was any comment by me made in an attempt to derail the thread. Indeed I merely voiced my distaste for child molesters and found a particular comparison offensive and I said so.

Oh and the main point = I misunderstood a latin word thereby causing confusion when stating my opinion.

 

Meeka, education has nothing to do with intelligence as sheather has shown! We have sheather on the one hand saying he thought he was a pedophile, the most common and most accepted meaning in society for that word is child molester. Social understanding is far more important than the root meaning because that is what the majority will understand. That is how communication has evolved. Look at the word gay it used to mean happy, now the most common usage of the word is for a homosexual lifestyle but that is the accepted usage today. As can be shown

see pics below.

http://dictionary.re....com/browse/Gay

gay

  AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "Show Spelled [gey] Show IPA </SPAN>adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb –adjective 1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. 2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments. 3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season. 4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies. 5. homosexual. 6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization. –noun 7. a homosexual person, especially a male. –adverb 8. in a gay manner. Use Gay in a SentenceSee images of GaySearch Gay on the WebOrigin:

1275–1325; 1950–55 for def. 5; Middle English gai < Old French < Germanic; compare Old High German gāhi fast, sudden

—Related forms gay·ness, noun non·gay, adjective qua·si-gay, adjective

—Synonyms

1. gleeful, jovial, glad, joyous, happy, cheerful, sprightly, blithe, airy, light-hearted; vivacious, frolicsome, sportive, hilarious. Gay, jolly, joyful, merry describe a happy or light-hearted mood. Gay suggests a lightness of heart or liveliness of mood that is openly manifested: when hearts were young and gay. Jolly indicates a good-humored, natural, expansive gaiety of mood or disposition: a jolly crowd at a party. Joyful suggests gladness, happiness, rejoicing: joyful over the good news. Merry is often interchangeable with gay : a merry disposition; a merry party; it suggests, even more than the latter, convivial animated enjoyment. 2. brilliant.

—Antonyms

1. unhappy, mournful.

—Usage note

In addition to its original and continuing senses of "merry, lively" and "bright or showy," gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and gay as an adjective meaning "homosexual" goes back at least to the early 1900s. After World War II, as social attitudes toward sexuality began to change, gay was applied openly by homosexuals to themselves, first as an adjective and later as a noun. Today, the noun often designates only a male homosexual: gays and lesbians. The word has ceased to be slang and is not used disparagingly. Homosexual as a noun is sometimes used only in reference to a male.

back on track, from wiki http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Pedophilia

Pedophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This article is primarily about the sexual interest in prepubescent children. For the sexual act, see Child sexual abuse. For the primary sexual interest in 11–14 year old pubescents, see Hebephilia. For mid-to-late adolescents (15-19), see Ephebophilia. PedophiliaClassification and external resourcesICD-10F65.4ICD-9302.2MeSHD010378As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles.^[1][2][3][4] The word comes from the Greek: παῖς (paîs), meaning "child," and φιλία (philía), "friendly love" or "friendship,"^[5] though this literal meaning has been altered toward sexual attraction in modern times, under the titles "child love" or "child lover," by pedophiles who use symbols and codes to identify their preferences.^[6][7] The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.^[8] The term has a range of definitions as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.^[1] The current DSM-5 draft proposes to add hebephilia to the diagnostic criteria, and consequently to rename it to pedohebephilic disorder.^[9] Although most pedophiles are men, there are also women who exhibit the disorder,^[10][11] and researchers assume available estimates underrepresent the true number of female pedophiles.^[12] No cure for pedophilia has been developed. There are, however, certain therapies that can reduce the incidence of a person committing child sexual abuse.^[13][14] In the United States, following Kansas v. Hendricks, sex offenders that are diagnosed with certain mental disorders, particularly pedophilia, can be subject to indefinite civil commitment,^[15] under various state laws (generically called SVP laws^[16][17][18]) and the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.^[19]

In popular usage, pedophilia means any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse, often termed "pedophilic behavior."^{[2][13][20][21]} For example, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary states, "Pedophilia is the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."^[22] This common use application also extends to the sexual interest and abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors.^[23][24] Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided,^[23] as people who commit child sexual abuse commonly exhibit the disorder,^[13][25][26] but some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia, and the clinical diagnosis standards pertain to prepubescents. Additionally, not all pedophiles actually commit such abuse.^[27][28][29]

Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century. A significant amount of research in the area has taken place since the 1980s. At present, the exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established.^[30] Research suggests that pedophilia may be correlated with several different neurological abnormalities, and often co-exists with other personality disorders and psychological pathologies. In the contexts of forensic psychology and law enforcement, a variety of typologies have been suggested to categorize pedophiles according to behavior and motivations.^[24]

Contents

[hide]

• <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1">

1 Etymology and definitions

• <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2">

1.1 Disease models <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3">1.2 Diagnostic criteria

• <LI class="toclevel-3 tocsection-4">

1.2.1 ICD-10 and DSM 1.2.2 Debate regarding the DSM criteria 1.2.3 Other uses

 

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7">2 Development and course <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8">3 Biological associations <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9">4 Psychopathology and personality traits <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10">5 Prevalence and child molestation <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-11">6 Child pornography <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12">7 Treatment

• <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13">

7.1 Cognitive behavioral therapy ("relapse prevention") <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14">7.2 Behavioral interventions <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15">7.3 Pharmacological interventions 7.4 Limitations of treatment

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-17">8 In law and forensic psychology

• 8.1 Civil commitment

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19">9 Societal views

• <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20">

9.1 General <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21">9.2 Misuse of medical terminology <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22">9.3 Pedophile advocacy groups 9.4 Anti-pedophile activism

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-24">10 In popular culture <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-25">11 See also <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-26">12 References [*]13 External links

 

Etymology and definitions

The word comes from the Greek: παιδοφιλία (paidophilía), παῖς (paîs), meaning "child," and φιλία (philía), meaning "friendly love" or "friendship."^[5] In modern times, pedophiles use the wording "child love" or "child lover" and largely in the context of romantic or sexual attraction.^[6][7]

Infantophilia, or nepiophilia, is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (usually ages 0–3).^[31]

Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger.^[1]

Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.^[32] The DSM IV does not list hebephilia among the diagnoses, while the ICD-10 includes hebephilia in its pedophilia definition.^[3]

Disease models

The term paedophilia erotica was coined in 1886 by the Viennese psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his writing Psychopathia Sexualis.^[33] The term appears in a section titled "Violation of Individuals Under the Age of Fourteen," which focuses on the forensic psychiatry aspect of child sexual offenders in general. Krafft-Ebing describes several typologies of offender, dividing them into psychopathological and non-psychopathological origins, and hypothesizes several apparent causal factors that may lead to the sexual abuse of children.^[33]

Krafft-Ebing mentioned paedophilia erotica in a typology of "psycho-sexual perversion." He wrote that he had only encountered it four times in his career and gave brief descriptions of each case, listing three common traits:

 

1. The individual is tainted [by heredity] (hereditär belastate)^[34]
2. The subject's primary attraction is to children, rather than adults.
3. The acts committed by the subject are typically not intercourse, but rather involve inappropriate touching or manipulating the child into performing an act on the subject.

He mentions several cases of pedophilia among adult women (provided by another physician), and also considered the abuse of boys by homosexual men to be extremely rare.^[33] Further clarifying this point, he indicated that cases of adult men who have some medical or neurological disorder and abuse a male child are not true pedophilia, and that in his observation victims of such men tended to be older and pubescent. He also lists "Pseudopaedophilia" as a related condition wherein "individuals who have lost libido for the adult through masturbation and subsequently turn to children for the gratification of their sexual appetite" and claimed this is much more common.^[33]

In 1908, Swiss neuroanatomist and psychiatrist Auguste Forel wrote of the phenomenon, proposing that it be referred to it as "Pederosis," the "Sexual Appetite for Children." Similar to Krafft-Ebing's work, Forel made the distinction between incidental sexual abuse by person's with dementia and other organic brain conditions, and the truly preferential and sometimes exclusive sexual desire for children. However, he disagreed with Krafft-Ebing in that he felt the condition of the latter was largely ingrained and unchangeable.^[35]

The term "pedophilia" became the generally accepted term for the condition and saw widespread adoption in the early 20th century, appearing in many popular medical dictionaries such as the 5th Edition of Stedman's. In 1952, it was included in the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.^[36] This edition and the subsequent DSM-II listed the disorder as one subtype of the classification "Sexual Deviation," but no diagnostic criteria were provided. The DSM-III, published in 1980, contained a full description of the disorder and provided a set of guidelines for diagnosis.^[37] The revision in 1987, the DSM-III-R, kept the description largely the same, but updated and expanded the diagnostic criteria.^[38] Some clinicians have proposed further cateogories, somewhat or completely distinguished from pedophilia, including "pedohebephilia," "hebephilia," and "ephebophilia" (though ephebophilia is not considered pathological).^[9][39] Other experts such as Karen Franklin consider classifications like hebephilia to be "pretextual" diagnoses which should not be considered disorders.^[40]

Diagnostic criteria

ICD-10 and DSM

The ICD-10 defines pedophilia as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."^[8] Under this system's criteria, a person 16 years of age or older meets the definition if they have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them.^[8]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) outlines specific criteria for use in the diagnosis of this disorder. These include the presence of sexually arousing fantasies, behaviors or urges that involve some kind of sexual activity with a prepubescent child (age 13 or younger, though onset of puberty may vary) for six months or more, and that the subject has acted on these urges or suffers from distress as a result of having these feelings. The criteria also indicate that the subject should be 16 or older and that the child or children they fantasize about are at least five years younger than them, though ongoing sexual relationships between a 12-13 year old and a late adolescent are advised to be excluded. A diagnosis is further specified by the sex of the children the person is attracted to, if the impulses or acts are limited to incest, and if the attraction is "exclusive" or "nonexclusive."^[1]

Many terms have been used to distinguish "true pedophiles" from non-pedophilic and non-exclusive offenders, or to distinguish among types of offenders on a continuum according to strength and exclusivity of pedophilic interest, and motivation for the offense (see child sexual offender types). Exclusive pedophiles are sometimes referred to as "true pedophiles." They are attracted to children, and children only. They show little erotic interest in adults their own age and, in some cases, can only become aroused while fantasizing or being in the presence of prepubescent children.^[12] Non-exclusive pedophiles may at times be referred to as non-pedophilic offenders, but the two terms are not always synonymous. Non-exclusive pedophiles are attracted to both children and adults, and can be sexually aroused by both, though a sexual preference for one over the other in this case may also exist.^[12]

Neither the ICD nor the DSM diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a prepubescent youth. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges even if they have never been acted upon. On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis. Acting on sexual urges is not limited to overt sex acts for purposes of this diagnosis, and can sometimes include indecent exposure, voyeuristic or frotteuristic behaviors,^[1] or masturbating to child pornography.^[41] Often, these behaviors need to be considered in-context with an element of clinical judgment before a diagnosis is made. Likewise, when the patient is in late adolescence, the age difference is not specified in hard numbers and instead requires careful consideration of the situation.^[42]

Ego-dystonic sexual orientation (F66.1) includes people who do not doubt that they have a prepubertal sexual preference, but wish it were different because of associated psychological and behavioral disorders. The World Health Organization (WHO) allows for the patient to seek treatment to change their sexual orientation.

From the red highlighted section it is plain to see that your understanding of the word is acceptable to the majority, as it communicates your meaning to the majority the root meaning is no longer really acceptable because the majority have changed the meaning through communication evolution - some people need to step out of the darkness and realise that they have a personality disorder of sorts.

Edited April 1, 2011 by dworx

[ballzac]

As to how I have access? It's not so hard once you begin to look. I doubt I could re-contact those that I have spoken to, but the internet is rife with information, and people willing to speak of their thoughts.

 

In spite of the fact that I do not no think these people are necessarily bad, assuming they have not - and will not - harm children, I would be very suspicious of any such person who is interested in networking with like minded people. Not to say that makes them guilty, but I wouldn't take their word as gospel.

Don't speak about closed minded when everything you seem to post is about grammatical error, again who gives a fuck it's communication buddy and we all understand it....

 

Actually, a difference in people's definitions has caused a lot of confusion in this thread, so I think it's fair enough to be very clear about it, especially if you feel someone deserves to die if you define them by a particular word.

Do you honestly feel that a person should have their balls cut off because of a thought? That's terribly Orwellian.

One of my main issues with this attitude is that the grey areas are made all the greyer when we are talking about thought rather than action. I tried to illustrate this with my question about a person fantasising about a child that they knew when they were also a child, but no one seemed interested in responding to that. My point is that the grey areas (like the concept of sex with a 15 year old when you are 18) are more difficult to define when you're only talking about thought. If you're going to condemn someone based on their thoughts, then you need to be very clear about what you're condemning, just as the law is very clear about what is legal and what is illegal. I think this is next to impossible to clearly define with regards to thought alone, and makes the whole issue nonsensical.

I don't see anything wrong with being attracted to a 15 year old, even though I know it would be wrong to actually have sex with a person of that age. In fact, while I'm sure that an attraction to prepubescent children is fairly uncommon, I think most men would have a natural attraction to sexually mature children whether they like it or not. If people are condemned for having such an attraction, then half the population must be condemned. If you think that it's okay to be sexually attracted to a 15 year old but not, for example, an 8 year old, then there must be a specific age where suddenly it is wrong. This has to be difficult to define, and every person would have a different opinion on what age someone must be before you can morally find them sexually attractive. Personally, I think the idea that there is something wrong with having a particular fantasy (no matter what it is) is absurd.

[dworx]

Well I'll say it this way then Sonny Jim - "I am okay with paedophilia." I do not condemn even people who have urges of a sexual nature towards children. I honestly do not believe that they have any choice in the manner of their urges, merely whether they act on them, or keep them internalised or suppressed. This reply alone sends alarm bells ringing add to it the rest of your commentary re: your own sick thought and fears and I have to wonder if you are not just here fishing for targets to fulfill your fantasies. I personally would give you no information on my whereabouts in trades or any other form esp. when kids are involved.

I would argue that in many cases, they are, seeing as the majority of paedophiles that I have spoken to would rather drive rusty nails through their genitals than hurt a child, especially one they felt an attraction to. Indeed, some form an almost fatherly protective emotion, they do not necessarily love children for their bodies, a solely sexual attraction. They are enthralled by the curiosity and adventure of children, their boundless enthusiasm and keenness to learn of the world. I can see where they're coming from in that respect too.

(Sorry if that gave an... unfortunate mental image to some of you.)

Are you a part of a pedophile ring? Bullshit the sexual urge is the first they would fail at, whether though masturbation or other, I bet you can understand a lot and relate to a lot of things re: pedos

You are condemning to those who have If I were to say, that someone has slighted me, it is not a serious slight, but I have taken to harbouring a grudge against them. To be perfectly honest, at times I have the odd urge, or at the least, strong thoughts, about doing horrible things to them, torturous and gruesome. I hold enough knowledge that the event would be extended and agonising.

I would never on this side of hell act on said thoughts though. Not if it would save my life, or save the life of another. Barring perhaps one that I love, but that is not the point. The point is, that by your words, it matters not whether I act on these thoughts? Merely having them is enough, for me to be in the wrong, for me to be a bad person?

It's late, I'm going to bed.

EDIT: That should read early. And my thoughts generally don't tend towards such things, but it is necessary for the demonstration of my meaning...

 

[dworx]

In spite of the fact that I do not no think these people are necessarily bad, assuming they have not - and will not - harm children, I would be very suspicious of any such person who is interested in networking with like minded people. Not to say that makes them guilty, but I wouldn't take their word as gospel.

Actually, a difference in people's definitions has caused a lot of confusion in this thread, so I think it's fair enough to be very clear about it, especially if you feel someone deserves to die if you define them by a particular word.

Do you honestly feel that a person should have their balls cut off because of a thought? That's terribly Orwellian.

One of my main issues with this attitude is that the grey areas are made all the greyer when we are talking about thought rather than action. I tried to illustrate this with my question about a person fantasising about a child that they knew when they were also a child, but no one seemed interested in responding to that. My point is that the grey areas (like the concept of sex with a 15 year old when you are 18) are more difficult to define when you're only talking about thought. If you're going to condemn someone based on their thoughts, then you need to be very clear about what you're condemning, just as the law is very clear about what is legal and what is illegal. I think this is next to impossible to clearly define with regards to thought alone, and makes the whole issue nonsensical.

I don't see anything wrong with being attracted to a 15 year old, even though I know it would be wrong to actually have sex with a person of that age. In fact, while I'm sure that an attraction to prepubescent children is fairly uncommon, I think most men would have a natural attraction to sexually mature children whether they like it or not. If people are condemned for having such an attraction, then half the population must be condemned. If you think that it's okay to be sexually attracted to a 15 year old but not, for example, an 8 year old, then there must be a specific age where suddenly it is wrong. This has to be difficult to define, and every person would have a different opinion on what age someone must be before you can morally find them sexually attractive. Personally, I think the idea that there is something wrong with having a particular fantasy (no matter what it is) is absurd.

The scenario you propose is probably carnal knowledge, pedophilia is young children - can you say that you would agree thoughts of sexual acts with pre-pubescent 4-13 yrsold is normal and acceptable, I don't it is sick.

[ballzac]

can you say that you would agree thoughts of sexual acts with pre-pubescent 4-13 yrsold is normal and acceptable, I don't it is sick.

Normal? Probably not. Acceptable? Well, I don't really believe it's my business to be accepting or rejecting another person's private thoughts.

The scenario you propose is probably carnal knowledge, pedophilia is young children

I still think it's kind of vague. There are 13 year old out there who could pass as 17 perhaps. Would you cut someone's balls off because they were attracted to them? I think if you are of the opinion that someone should die or be castrated because of their thoughts, then you need to really flesh out what constitutes an improper thought and what does not. Unless you give me a strict set of rules of what I can and can't think about, I might inadvertantly think about something that leads to you chopping my balls off.

[dworx]

Normal? Probably not. Acceptable? Well, I don't really believe it's my business to be accepting or rejecting another person's private thoughts. They are only his / her thoughts while they are personally his hers and once released to anyne else they are public and that is when it is unacceptable - how else would we know about it

I still think it's kind of vague. There are 13 year old out there who could pass as 17 perhaps. Would you cut someone's balls off because they were attracted to them? I think if you are of the opinion that someone should die or be castrated because of their thoughts, then you need to really flesh out what constitutes an improper thought and what does not. Unless you give me a strict set of rules of what I can and can't think about, I might inadvertantly think about something that leads to you chopping my balls off. I never said I was judge jury & executioner, go to the extreme do you think sexual intercourse with a four year old or thought of such is acceptable, yes of course I will judge your answer, what if it is your child they are fantacising about [ you may not have any children] so I will leave a margin of years to answer that], it should be not acceptable in my opinion to anyone except other pedophiles, It is depraved, It is disgusting.

[Sheather]

interested in networking with like minded people

I have no such interest. The scenarios I got myself into were in more of an interview style.

your own sick thought and fears

You know nothing of my thoughts.

I have to wonder if you are not just here fishing for targets to fulfill your fantasies

That is remarkably stupid in many aspects. First, this forum has my information, and would link such things rather easily, second, it's an international community, why would I fish for targets here when I could just go for a walk in suburbia? Third, You make the assumption that I am a paedophile.

Are you a part of a pedophile ring?

Yeah, totes, I'm like, the boss man of my own paedophile ring. Seriously, my thoughts on your stupidity were a huge understatement.

Not necessary mate if people don't understand they ask

It was made clear that definitions were required for clear understanding. Different definitions of a word are not so uncommon, and defining such is what makes communication clear. I am not your "mate".

Whos a clever boy then!

Well it's rather apparent that one of us is clever. The other jumps to conclusions based on handfuls of words.

EDIT: Stop calling me a paedophile. If I am such, then the only person on the circle of the earth that will know for sure is me. Seeing as I do not believe this to be the case, you shouldn't be making such assumptions.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Sheather

[dworx]

I have no such interest. The scenarios I got myself into were in more of an interview style.

You know nothing of my thoughts. I never said I did you said you feared you were a pedophile.

That is remarkably stupid in many aspects. First, this forum has my information, and would link such things rather easily, second, it's an international community, why would I fish for targets here when I could just go for a walk in suburbia? Third, You make the assumption that I am a paedophile. Who am I to wonder at your amazing brilliance, you obviously have much better plans than I would ever have, I am sure pedophiles pick their targets in many different ways? You tell me you speak with them. I assume nothing you said you thought youwere a while back?

Yeah, totes, I'm like, the boss man of my own paedophile ring. Seriously, my thoughts on your stupidity were a huge understatement. You just pullin' my chain now ain'tcha?

It was made clear that definitions were required for clear understanding. Different definitions of a word are not so uncommon, and defining such is what makes communication clear. I am not your "mate". Phew glad we cleared that up not your"mate" so what should I call you cos I'm not typing not your"mate every time?

Well it's rather apparent that one of us is clever. The other jumps to conclusions based on handfuls of words. Really I thought words were your specialty, so is it I jumping to conclusions based on your words - the words of a sword smith [should come in handy at court] or is it the other way around?

EDIT: Stop calling me a paedophile. If I am such, then the only person on the circle of the earth that will know for sure is me. Seeing as I do not believe this to be the case, you shouldn't be making such assumptions. I don't beleive I called you a pedophile, while you told us you have many thoughts about it and you thought you were one a while back and I may have quoted you if I ever called you a pedophile I apologise it would be a slip of my typing fingers, but it might pay to remember "if you sleep with dogs you'll get fleas.

 

Edited March 22, 2011 by dworx

[dworx]

see still typo's^^^^^^^^^^^

[synchromesh]

I currently don't have time to go through dworx's annoying and unquatable quote posts (seriously, WTF man?), so I'll just post this for now:

Of course sexual attraction to pubescent children is natural. That's how we evolved! I believe that the current moral climate of disgust and outright condemnation for a person's natural feelings is itself a social phase that we will eventually get through. In years to come, it might even be flipped over, as for gay people, so that to deny a child his/her sexual choices is abusive and wrong.

On that point, I am tired of hearing the old chestnut that children are incapable of giving consent. What exactly does that mean? We respect their consent in all other areas of life. Not to do so would be roundly condemned as child abuse. It seems that 'children are people too', except when we decide that they aren't. I suspect the motives behind this inconsistent set of values are adult motives.

"Incapable of giving consent." Perhaps it is supposed to mean that pubescent children, although physically ready to reproduce, are not emotionally mature enough to make the decision? Well, think about it. How emotionally mature do you need to be in order to choose sexual activity for enjoyment without being abused?

I think it is the adults who inject more significance into the act of sex than is necessary. It's the adult mindset that insists that a child has to be ready to decide on getting married, having kids, and being an adult. Apparently, the poor innocent child needs to be ready to make all those major life decisions before s/he can play with sex. Not in the interest of the kids. Kids just want to explore sex for the enjoyment of it, and there is no earthly reason why that should be deemed wrong.

It's a control mechanism, thinly veiled as protection.

Quote from Aveskde:

"They do not fully understand what they are doing, however."

Yes they DO understand what they are doing! They are having sex play with someone, and it is enjoyable. What they DON'T fully understand is the complex and prohibitive set of values society at large is going to dump on them for doing so.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_Pedophilia_a_Mental_Disorder_or_Natural

[solomon]

Did anyone know that the famous beat poet Allen Ginsberg (wrote the poem Howl) was a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association?

[dworx]

Synchro I hope it does annoy you mate cos what you offer is vile if you really beleive that quote. I would love to see how many people in this community alone would agree with your thoughts on pedophilia being acceptable, mate kids don't understand, they explore with like minded childeren in their age bracket not dirty men who are going to do physical damage to their defenseless bodies. If I am wrong and people here agree with you that pedophillia is normal and to be accepted I will leave voluntarily in disgust.

[Sheather]

I never said I did you said you feared you were a pedophile.

your own sick thought and fears

You imply knowledge of my thoughts and fears by calling them sick.

you obviously have much better plans than I would ever have

That was 10 seconds of thinking about how damn stupid your statement was, I don't lay plans to any such purpose.

You tell me you speak with them.

I told you no such thing. I said at some stage in the past I spoke with some. Communication. We all understand it.

You just pullin' my chain now ain'tcha?

Who's a clever boy?

so what should I call you

Use my name, I have one for a reason.

I thought words were your specialty

You thought many things I'm sure. I am good with words, they are hardly a specialty.

the words of a sword smith

What indicates that I am a swordsmith? Are you jumping to another conclusion?

should come in handy at court

Why would I be in court?

you told us you have many thoughts about it

I told you, yet again, nothing of the sort. That I have thought about it, that I was afraid of being one, does not give you a quantity. Jump to conclusions again? Oh look - you did.

[Sheather]

thought you were one a while back

No I didn't. There is a difference between fearing something is true and thinking it is true. It seems someone needs to start reading what is written, not what is easy to poke holes in.

I don't beleive I called you a pedophile

Oh dear, for once my words failed me! Stop implying that I am a paedophile then.