synchromesh Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) You need to get a grip man. Which 13 year old girls or boys hasn't had sex these days? Edited March 22, 2011 by synchromesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Maybe pedophilia is just a leftover from the ape/cave man evolution? Maybe it will naturally die out over time? Females avoid incest by causing male relatives to leave home Edited March 22, 2011 by synchromesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted March 22, 2011 You need to get a grip man. Which 13 year old girls or boys hasn't had sex these days? Plenty of 13 year old girls and boys have not had sex at age 13. What does that have to do with child molestation? Are you saying that this makes it OK for an adult to have sex with a 13 year old? I really hope not. There are really important reasons for why an adult should not have sex with a child, I thought that was obvious, maybe it is not. That is understandable if people posting here are not adults them selves. One of the main reason that an adult should not have sex with or even sexualise a child is because it is the abuse of a position of trust. This is harmful emotionally to a child because trust is a pretty fundamental part of how we feel about the world and their is nothing quite like an adult abusing the trust a child has for them in terms of causing dreadful emotional pain. This is true even when a an 18 year old has sex with a 13 year old. The 13 year will be hurt when they realise that they were fooled by their feelings of admiration for the 18 year old who is older and cooler than them. They let the older person into their intimate space thinking they were both on the same level but this was not true. Most 18 year olds are on a different level in many ways to a 13 year old but the 13 year old does not realise this. The 13 year old might think the older person actually loves them on more than just a sexual level. The 13 year old will be hurt and hurt in a very deep way because they are usually so trusting. They have been violated in more ways than just sexually and will have great difficulty trusting with any kind of intimacy again. This is a terrible fate for the 13 year old because not being able to trust will stop them from taking part in many things in life that sustains them. But of course we all need sustenance and will become desperate without it. Having never been able to sustain them selves sexually or emotionally the now grown up 13 year old will find them selves with needs that cannot be met in a healthy way. But they need sex and emotional intimacy. The last time they could ever trust someone was when they were a child before the older person abused them, that was the last time they felt comfortable just to be next to someone else. Their sexual needs find it easiest to manifest themselves with people they can intimately trust but the only people who fit that description are children... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Plenty of 13 year old girls and boys have not had sex at age 13. What does that have to do with child molestation? Are you saying that this makes it OK for an adult to have sex with a 13 year old? I really hope not. Why are some of you so jumpy? All I was saying was that if you're a 13 year old (a teenager), one of the main things on your mind is most probably sex. And that if you really want to have sex with another 13 year old, then who's to say that you shouldn't? 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. Yeah, if it's so frowned upon, than why do so many men keep on looking...? Edited March 22, 2011 by synchromesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted March 22, 2011 I can't help but be a bit confused about people opinions posted in this thread. People keep saying that they are not trying to defend pedophilia but there are a lot of post here that honestly sound to me like people don't understand why pedophilia is wrong. I know people have said that child molestation is wrong but it sounds to me like some people are trying to say that thinking about it is ok. Of course no one can stop an adult from fantasizing about sex with a child but that doesn't make these thoughts good thoughts. I know there might be people out there who wish they didn't have these thoughts but again it does not make them good thoughts. The people having them should not try to defend them IMO. Sure they should try there best to understand these thoughts, that is the only way they could ever over come them. I they are really good people then they should try their guts out to realise that there sexuality could only ever cause harm and I hope for their sake and everyone else they can do it. But they should never think that these kind of thoughts are OK because they would be wrong and they would be dangerous people. I also take issue with people who try to defend these thoughts. To me it seems like the defenders don't understand much about the psychological condition called pedophilia or the damage it does to the victims when these thought are acted out. I can only go off what people have written, I don't know anyone on this forum personally. Why did you write that about 13 year olds? I can't understand how it is relevant to the discussion so far unless you are trying to downplay the horrible nature of pedophilic (word?) thoughts. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FancyPants Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) ^^^ Synchro, as Sheather pointed out, sexual attraction to pubescents is ephebophilia, not paedophilia; so do you still want to say that it's no big deal because plenty of 8 or 9 year olds have sex? And to those who would seek to teach through fact, rather than abuse, I thank you too. How you were treated in this thread in regards to a common definition I find unbelievable. In any other thread, I'm sure Hutch would've labelled Sheather a "fucking little sook" ;) (please note, I'm not having a dig at Hutch here, it just popped into my head to think that and I had to share) I think you should agree with me because you are using false definitions of words and making incorrect and ignorant statements as a result of such. I haven't said you won't listen because of some state of catatonia. I think you won't listen because you don't want to, because you like believing what you believe and don't care to change that, and my admission that I will be unable to change those thoughts was all I was saying. In my eyes you are a lost cause. THAT IS MY ISSUE. It has been explained at least three times in this thread! An adult who has sex with a child is a CHILD MOLESTER, and adult who has an urge to do so but does NOT is a paedophile*. I can make a distinction between acting and thinking, yet you seem to be unable to. You don't discern the difference between paedophilia and child molestation, and believe that all paedophiles are intrinsically child molesters. Paedophilia is nothing more than a way of thinking. Serial killers are people who act. I'm not going to waste my time with you any further. * Edit: Paedophiles may act on said urges, and in such cases they fall under both categorisations. That comment sounds like I'm saying paedophiles can't molest children but I don't mean it that way. If your definition is so cut-and-dried, why do you say paedophilia isn't necessarily inclusive of sexual thoughts but is moreso about admiration and care? Wouldn't that - like ThunderIdeal said - equate most adults with being paedophiles? You're getting humphy about YOUR definitions which you've chopped and changed at your convenience. 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: "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." We don't let 9 year olds drive cars, gamble, drink liquor, get married, sign contracts, serve jury duty etc etc. CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS. There are reasons there are laws to protect against the corruption of youths by those in position of trust or authority etc. The age of legal consent itself may very well be arbitrary but THAT is NOT this debate. Edited March 22, 2011 by FancyPants 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) ^^^ Synchro, as Sheather pointed out, sexual attraction to pubescents is ephebophilia, not paedophilia; so do you still want to say that it's no big deal because plenty of 8 or 9 year olds have sex? Yeah, but according to the politicians, the media, the police and some of you guys (etc); it isn't. So what are we really talking about here? If your definition is so cut-and-dried, why do you say paedophilia isn't necessarily inclusive of sexual thoughts but is moreso about admiration and care? Wouldn't that - like ThunderIdeal said - equate most adults with being paedophiles? You're getting humphy about YOUR definitions which you've chopped and changed at your convenience. When did Sheather say this? One thing you've gotta realise, okay, is that the media stereotype of pedophiles is largely bullshit. For example, I'm pretty sure that most pedophiles don't lurk outside of primary schools with a bag of candy! We don't let 9 year olds drive cars, gamble, drink liquor, get married, sign contracts, serve jury duty etc etc. CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS. There are reasons there are laws to protect against the corruption of youths by those in position of trust or authority etc. The age of legal consent itself may very well be arbitrary but THAT is NOT this debate. Since when are 9 year olds pubescent? You just defeated your own argument... EDIT: My typing today is terrible! ...Not enough bloody sleep! Edited March 22, 2011 by synchromesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted March 22, 2011 If your definition is so cut-and-dried, why do you say paedophilia isn't necessarily inclusive of sexual thoughts but is moreso about admiration and care? Wouldn't that - like ThunderIdeal said - equate most adults with being paedophiles? You're getting humphy about YOUR definitions which you've chopped and changed at your convenience. Please point to where I explicitly state that paedophilia does not require sexual thought, and I will correct it. I believe I have said at some point that it can involve feelings of admiration and care, or intimacy and playfulness, but that does not revoke my previous comments. These aspects are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure Hutch would've labelled Sheather a "fucking little sook" Why, because I got offended and reacted in anger? As far as it being a common definition goes, it isn't in any circle I frequent. Perhaps my friends are more linguistic than most, but every one of them hold a clear distinction between paedophilia and child molestation, and to see that completely ignored brushed me the wrong way. The tone of my post was definitely not sulky, and other forum members have agreed with me on the matter of distinction between definitions (if not with the same degree of emotion involved). I doubt Hutch would call me a "fucking little sook" either. We are on more civilised terms than that. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted March 22, 2011 i strongly disagree with this consensual sex with a minor theme. that is all. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 22, 2011 Why did you write that about 13 year olds? I can't understand how it is relevant to the discussion so far unless you are trying to downplay the horrible nature of pedophilic (word?) thoughts. I wrote that because it demonstrates that there's noticeable flaws in the argument of consent... Peachy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted March 22, 2011 well im just gonna put it out there.. would u have sex with a consenting minor synchro?? i mean u talk the talk, or thesis whatver may be.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted March 22, 2011 "When did Sheather say this? One thing you've gotta realise, okay, is that the media stereotype of pedophiles is largely bullshit. For example, I'm pretty sure that most pedophiles don't lurk outside of primary schools with a bag of candy!" I can help but think you really are defending pedophilia and that you don't understand why we have laws to protect children from them. It doesn't matter how pedophiles find there victims, they find them. In all kinds of different ways. Tricking kids into cars is just one of them and it does happen. I remember it happening in a suburb I used to live in and we were very scared for our children until they found the guy. How can you say the pedophilia is a media beat up? I know the media plays on people fears for their own gain but common. You seem to be so wound up in arguing for the sake of arguing that you are defending pedophiles. Please tell us that you understand that an adult having sex with a child is wrong. If you don't think it is wrong them just come straight out and say it. I would like it if you read my post (103) and told me what you think about my description of how children can be hurt by this. Do you think I am wrong? Do you know how to describe a similar situation and make us understand that it is indeed ok? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted March 22, 2011 "Perhaps my friends are more linguistic than most, but every one of them hold a clear distinction between paedophilia and child molestation, and to see that completely ignored brushed me the wrong way." It was not completely ignored, I am sure most people understand the distinction. You said I did not get it in one of your posts but my first post in this thread addressed it in the first paragraph. The whole first paragraph was about the distinction. Please read it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted March 22, 2011 Sonny Jim's continued deliberate ignorance grows wearisome. We do not defend child molesters. Child molesters are whom you speak of when you say they find victims; that they are dangerous. Paedophiles have done nothing to harm society, unless they have crossed into the realms of child molestation or pornography. None of us condone child molestation or sexual activity with children in any way, or at least that's what I've read. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted March 22, 2011 being attracted to pubescent and pre-pubescent children cant be a natural instinct..can it?? i guess thats why most parents and im guessing here.. a larger part of society have the instinct to string these fuckers up by their eyelids. maybee natures little tweek to ensure our evolution/survival. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted March 22, 2011 It was not completely ignored, I am sure most people understand the distinction. I got riled up after it was completely ignored. Read the first page. My response was to Meeka, who equated the two as one and the same. If you mean later through the thread, then sure, it's been mentioned many times. maybee natures little tweek to ensure our evolution/survival. Because that works so well with all manner of genetic fuckups that run rampant in humanity. Nature? Nature wouldn't allow the short-sighted, the obese, diabetics etc. But in nature, a paedophile has the same chance of survival as anyone else. I very much doubt this has anything to do with nature "tweaking" at us. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dworx Posted March 22, 2011 Sonny Jim's continued deliberate ignorance grows wearisome. We do not defend child molesters. Child molesters are whom you speak of when you say they find victims; that they are dangerous. Paedophiles have done nothing to harm society, unless they have crossed into the realms of child molestation or pornography. None of us condone child molestation or sexual activity with children in any way, or at least that's what I've read. It's not ignorance, it is compassion for victims. You defend a pedo only because you feared you were a pedo for a short while not long ago, Fill us in on your interviews with pedos, if it was interviews you would document them but I doubt this happened because you would only interview for a study. No-one gives a fuck for your definitions - not any one sane enough to see it is sickto have thoughts of sexual encounters with kids under thirteen. Tell us why you thought you may have been a pedo? You had those thoughts possibly. Please don't infer I am saying you are a pedo I am just responding to the information you posted, but you do seem to be trying to tell us and I am just guessing you want acceptance of it? I could be wrong I know I ain't too bright, but that is what you are communicating to me with your argument for pedos. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) edit: this is a reply to sheather Thanks for answering my question Please don't be rude to me. "Paedophiles have done nothing to harm society, unless they have crossed into the realms of child molestation or pornography" That is obvious, but I think having sexual thoughts about children is a bad thing. You said that people who have these urges and don't act on them are good people. I think that is wrong. Unless these good pedophiles are terribly conflicted about their urges and hate themselves for it. I think they are bad people, well more like very stupid people because they don't realise that their urges are all about hurting children and nothing more. Their is no way of seeing a child in a sexual way that is not wrong. That is what I think. Would you agree with that? Edited March 22, 2011 by Sonny Jim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted March 22, 2011 But in nature, a paedophile has the same chance of survival as anyone thats where i call u being full of soggy fungus gnats. nature in action right there. wonder what a tigress would do to another tiger who was 'showing some lurvin' to her cub? im exitin this convo cos ive got no time for that shit-talk. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dworx Posted March 22, 2011 But in nature, a paedophile has the same chance of survival as anyone else. Not where i come from 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) You defend a pedo only because you feared you were a pedo for a short while Wrong Fill us in on your interviews with pedos, if it was interviews you would document them I said they were in the style of an interview, not that they were interviews. They were for my curiosity, and I did not and do not see any need to document them. Tell us why you thought you may have been a pedo? No. I consider that private. You had those thoughts possibly. Possibly, and I am (as far as I am concerned) a good person. Better than most from what I've seen of the average Joe. I am just guessing you want acceptance of it? Not really, I honestly don't know what I intended to achieve with that admission, but acceptance is the last thing I expect. You said that people who have these urges and don't act on them are good people. I think they can be good people. Actions speak louder than words, or in this case, thoughts. Just an opinion. Please don't be rude to me. Yes, I am actually sorry about that. Reading through again, I see that I have confused a few of your posts with dworx's, and have been viewing you in a light that you don't deserve. (particularly his castration comment, which I accidentally read as yours) I do not disagree that seeing a child in a sexual way is wrong. I am defending paedophiles in that they can be good people, and that having thought of wrong, well, everyone has thought dark thoughts before. Edit: Could someone fill me in on why #116 has -2? I don't see anything offensive or wrong in there... Is it mention of the genetic fuckups? Another Edit: removed a paragraph that I thought better of. Edited March 22, 2011 by Sheather Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) i guess i see where ur coming from...at least. finding something arousing is alot different to acting upon it. this consensual sex with minor topic freaks me out, asides the minor age differences seen in teens. i see it as a huge grey area that would be abused, and even the "consensual"cases still extremely scry to me and not something i would find myself able to tolerate as a conscious human being. just the concept that there are folk that find children arousing is a frightening thought as a parent. but unfortunately, as stated, fact. Edited March 22, 2011 by incognito Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sonny Jim Posted March 22, 2011 "Yes, I am actually sorry about that. Reading through again, I see that I have confused a few of your posts with dworx's, and have been viewing you in a light that you don't deserve. (particularly his castration comment, which I accidentally read as yours)" Thank you sheather "I do not disagree that seeing a child in a sexual way is wrong. I am defending paedophiles in that they can be good people, and that having thought of wrong, well, everyone has thought dark thoughts before." I would agree that it is possible for people to over come their dark thoughts. As far as I know the only kind of help pedophiles have with this is in prison. Do you know of any kind of therapist who would be brave enough to do that kind of work with pedophiles who have not offended? Have there been any cases of pedophiles who have not yet offended but been brave enough to try to get help? That would be really interesting to hear about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheather Posted March 22, 2011 I believe I know one such therapist. Though I can not say for sure what she is or isn't brave enough to do. It would be much to handle. Also one of those I spoke to claimed to try getting therapy without having offended. I believe not much came of it, the therapist was going about "curing" him of his "disease". Didn't work out for him in the end but I think he solved it his own way. Either way. Just one of each is hardly reassuring. I wonder if there are any female paedophiles? Pretty sure I've heard stories, but nothing concrete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted March 22, 2011 well im just gonna put it out there.. would u have sex with a consenting minor synchro?? i mean u talk the talk, or thesis whatver may be.. Go fuck yourself, incog! How about that? It doesn't matter how pedophiles find there victims, they find them. In all kinds of different ways. Tricking kids into cars is just one of them and it does happen. I remember it happening in a suburb I used to live in and we were very scared for our children until they found the guy. One case, eh? I know of one case as well. Doesn't change much in the broader scope of things though... Two experts on sex offenders estimate that 80 percent to 90 percent or more of all child molestations are committed by people who know the victim. And sex offenders who abduct children they don't know make up only about 5 percent of those who have served time in state prison, said Doris Mahlum, a district administrator for the California Department of Corrections Parole Division. http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_27a6beaf-3bab-59cd-be53-36074d377a84.html Please tell us that you understand that an adult having sex with a child is wrong. If you don't think it is wrong them just come straight out and say it. Pfft, I don't need to answer you. I'm one of the few people here who actually cares about finding a solution to this problem... I would like it if you read my post (103) and told me what you think about my description of how children can be hurt by this. Do you think I am wrong? Do you know how to describe a similar situation and make us understand that it is indeed ok? I've already read it and I mostly agree with it. The main part I don't agree with is that every person who has sex at 13 will become a pedophile... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
