Pedophilia and child abuse [Archive]

Craig_J

25th November 2013, 22:55

Of all the things that makes me lose faith in humanity and question my beliefs (which is anarcho-syndicalism by the way) nothing does it more than the sickening act which is child abuse. Not even reading story's of murder can sicken me more, this is perhaps because my step-grandfather attempted (as far as my memory can open up it was only an attempt) to abuse me when I was around 6-7.

Though I firmly believe that many 'crimes' as they are now known in current society such as murder, theft, rape etc. can be prevented in an anarchist society through simple changes in the education program, the abolishment of class difference and private property, the simple teaching of morals such as gender equality and consciousness raising, pedophilia is one which deeply concerns me.

As a sociology student I always look at things from a cause and effect perspective and try and work out what sort of factors can take place to cause someone to commit a 'crime'. Pedophilia is very confusing though as there seems to clear cut causes. Though it's absolutely sickening some have claimed that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I am open to the idea that this may be true, but I really hope it is not as if it is it's something which can't be prevented.

Of course in current society it isn't prevented a such. It's merely 'punished' and they look to rehabilitate the offender (which is of course almost impossible IF it is a sexual orientation) whilst also preventing them from carrying out more attacks whilst they're in jail.

I believe that rather than having a law based system an anarchist society would work by teaching good and proper morals, such as respect for fellow human beings and to share rather than bringing a child up from birth to only look after themselves and to be greedy. BUT if pedophilia is a sexual orientation how can we ensure that they don't abuse many, many children if caught if their is no prison system?

This is perhaps the one single issue that I am constantly trying to suss out. Luckily it is the one argument I haven't heard against my ideology as it is probably the single one which I would have no logical response to!

So anyone have any suggestions or believe that it is a thing that isn't an orientation but a social or psychological construct which can be prevented?

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 00:11

to me its the same as saying that people who rape do so due to sexual orientation. what's the difference? sexual activity without consent is unacceptable regardless of age. we get more concerned when its children as, due to the fact they are under-developed physically and mentally, they are less able to defend themselves. they are children - we raise them and hope to do so in environments in which they are protected from harm and abuse. imposing sexual will on another person - whether through violent force, coercive manipulation or both - is wrong.

the fact of the matter is that 'my freedom ends where another person's begins', thus sexual activity can only occur within the parameters of consent. in the context of paedophilia, the child's freedom to be a child and to develop naturally and healthily is the number one priority. we respect the freedom of children to be children just as we respect the freedom of women to be women without being sex-objects for people whose 'sexual-orientation' says that they have a right over women's bodies. its the same principles, which is about consent. to me, what distinguishes children in this regard is their lack of ability to consent or otherwise, due to their underdevelopment (physically, emotionally, linguistically and so on). they are more easily manipulated, which leads some paedophiles to believe that children can actually consent, and this is one aspect of the question that needs to be addressed in my opinion. it crosses over to adult forms of rape too, in which coercion occurs - this can help to blur the lines of consent. when it comes to children, this factor is a lot more significant and children don't have the social understanding of sexual relations required to engage in them healthily.

voluntary chemical castration or democratically forced social isolation for those who have the urge and cannot get over it. perhaps there will be people who can overcome their sexual desires through therapies, but i've seen no evidence of this and wouldn't want to risk the psychological and even physical trauma that many children will face at the hands of paedophiles.

Skyhilist

26th November 2013, 00:12

I imagine pedophilia under anarchism would be treated as a mental health issue - that is these people could be held in mental institutions, which would prevent them from hurting children. The number of pedophiles I think would be reduced though because a lot of things like pedophilia (or psychopathy) often take both genetics and triggers from the surrounding culture to become active.

Also, I recall seeing this on an interesting science show - we may be able to modify behaviors like pedophilia with new technology that somehow uses electromagnetic interactions with the brain. It's in it's infancy right now and I don't know all the details, but that seems like it could be potentially helpful also in the future for issues like this when people have a disposition to do nasty things (which isn't most of the time of course but could be applicable for some things like this).

the debater

26th November 2013, 00:21

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 00:31

While I personally believe that being attracted to adults or teenagers is "natural" sexual desire, I have to wonder if being attracted to children or young teenagers is perhaps a result of one's environment? Or is it even a situation where an adult pedophile cannot find an age-appropriate partner, and thus, they feel like they have to molest kids to find an outlet for their sexual desires?
everything i've read suggests that the majority of paedophiles are attracted to children exclusively.

it is known as a paraphilia. paraphilia are regarded as abnormal desires which often lead to extreme activities. in this case, raping children for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Sasha

26th November 2013, 00:31

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 00:37

Art Vandelay

26th November 2013, 01:06

what kind of help services would you put in place? opportunities for chemical castration?

saw an interview with a paedophile who was chemically castrated and he said it stopped his desire to act, even though the psychological framework of his sexual desires was still there.basically he was impotent but still physically attracted to children

In the job field I work in, you at times interact with people who have developmental disabilities which have resulted in them having sexual attraction to minors (I'm being purposely vague since pedophilia is a term which is generally misused). One individual in particular is someone who will always have a mindset of a 10-12 year old, will always conceive of himself in that fashion and is therefor attracted to people who views as his peers. He has no history of abuse and I would feel confidant in saying he never will. He's chosen to take medication and regularily attend therapy in order to combat his sexual desires, since he knows it would be socially unacceptable/harmful to the other individual to act on them. While this example is far from the norm, I think it highlights the ways in which therapy/treatment can be sucessfull and also the ways in which this issue needs to be approached with nuance. I certainly dont think an individual like the one I alluded to above needs to deal with any extra judgement and condemnation from the general public, when he already gets enough shit simply living his life with his disability.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 01:14

In the job field I work in, you at times interact with people who have developmental disabilities which have resulted in them having sexual attraction to minors (I'm being purposely vague since pedophilia is a term which is generally misused). One individual in particular is someone who will always have a mindset of a 10-12 year old, will always conceive of himself in that fashion and is therefor attracted to people who views as his peers. He has no history of abuse and I would feel confidant in saying he never will. He's chosen to take medication and regularily attend therapy in order to combat his sexual desires, since he knows it would be socially unacceptable/harmful to the other individual to act on them. While this example is far from the norm, I think it highlights the ways in which therapy/treatment can be sucessfull and also the ways in which this issue needs to be approached with nuance. I certainly dont think an individual like the one I alluded to above needs to deal with any extra judgement and condemnation from the general public, when he already gets enough shit simply living his life with his disability.
this is quite problematic. the individual you mentioned is as much of generalized example of paedophiles as the word 'paedophile' itself is (you pointed out its limitations). the majority of paedophiles and their conditions aren't probably similar to this case, it sounds unusual.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

26th November 2013, 01:16

there is a stark moral difference between pedophelia (having an atraction towards children) and pedosexuality (acting upon that desire) though, to combat the latter we need to understand the former and give pedophiles an safe way to seek help, not confusing the two is there for essential imo, not every pedophile is a child rapist.

Hmm, anyone who works in social work can correct me but I don't see much of a difference in sexual orientation based on practice and desire. Surely a heterosexual who abstains from engaging in sexual acts for personal reasons doesn't require a label. Otherwise your post is spot on

what kind of help services would you put in place? opportunities for chemical castration?

Chemical castration is barbaric. Just because our bigoted society has guilted some pedophiles into doing it to finally have a way out of persecution outside of suicide doesn't make it right. Why should they have their sexuality and fertility removed from them just because pedophibia gives no option to pursue their sexuality other than the unfortunate avenues that characterize pedophilia today.

I imagine in a just society there would be a way for them to enjoy sexual release without resorting to rape or the manipulation of children. Unfortunately I'll concede that I'm not sure how that would be possible. Or perhaps we might be able to give them the ability to change sexual orientation, but to force them towards such an option would be completely unacceptable.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 01:21

Hmm, anyone who works in social work can correct me but I don't see much of a difference in sexual orientation based on practice and desire. Surely a heterosexual who abstains from engaging in sexual acts for personal reasons doesn't require a label. Otherwise your post is spot on

Chemical castration is barbaric. Just because our bigoted society has guilted some pedophiles into doing it to finally have a way out of persecution outside of suicide doesn't make it right. Why should they have their sexuality and fertility removed from them just because pedophibia gives no option to pursue their sexuality other than the unfortunate avenues that characterize pedophilia today.

I imagine in a just society there would be a way for them to enjoy sexual release without resorting to rape or the manipulation of children. Unfortunately I'll concede that I'm not sure how that would be possible. Or perhaps we might be able to give them the ability to change sexual orientation, but to force them towards such an option would be completely unacceptable.
this is where the burden of the question lies, though. how else can paedophiles pursue their sexuality without children being hurt?

those with a desire to rape, how do we facilitate their desire to rape adults (as opposed to children) without the desired act actually taking place?

chemical castration is far less barbaric than the act of raping an adult or a child.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

26th November 2013, 01:31

this is where the burden of the question lies, though. how else can paedophiles pursue their sexuality?

I admit that I don't exactly know, though I see nothing wrong with masturbation or perhaps certain fantasy items being made to appease their libido.

those with a desire to rape, how do we facilitate their desire to rape adults (as opposed to children) without the desired act actually taking place?

A pedophile's "desire to rape" is much different than a heterosexual males desire to rape. Rape within heterosexuality is a specific act within heterosexuality, while for a pedophile literally anything he does with a child is rape. There isn't really a comparison here, being a pedophile doesn't make you a sadist, it's just that your sexual activity is classified as rape even if the rape/non-consent aspect isn't what attracts you to children just like a normal heterosexual isn't attracted to the opposite gender on the basis of sadism but on the basis of the normal functioning of his/her libido. There is nothing inherently rapist about pedophila outside of the act of having sex with a child.

chemical castration is far less barbaric than the act of raping an adult or a child.

True, but this is implying that they all want to rape children. That's false, what they do is classified as child rape not because it has the characteristics of heterosexual rape but because children are unable to consent.

Art Vandelay

26th November 2013, 08:03

this is quite problematic. the individual you mentioned is as much of generalized example of paedophiles as the word 'paedophile' itself is (you pointed out its limitations). the majority of paedophiles and their conditions aren't probably similar to this case, it sounds unusual.

Its definitely unusual, that was my entire point of bringing it up. I think that people tend to have a 'get out the pitch forks' type of mentality when it comes to this topic and quite frankly I don't blame them. I'd even go as far to say that at many points in my life, when it comes to perpetrators of this sort of crime, I'd probably have had the mentality of 'shoot them in their kneecaps.' My entire point is that there are exceptions to the rule, which is why I said a monolithic approach to this issue isn't productive. I mean, a year ago, I wouldn't have made this post, but through my job I've worked with an individual who relates to the topic in question and I'd hate to see him be lumped in with a dude driving some creepy van around a school. So that was my only point, that analyzing this issue in a completely generalized fashion isn't acceptable.

Sasha

26th November 2013, 10:59

this is where the burden of the question lies, though. how else can paedophiles pursue their sexuality without children being hurt?

those with a desire to rape, how do we facilitate their desire to rape adults (as opposed to children) without the desired act actually taking place?

chemical castration is far less barbaric than the act of raping an adult or a child.

Most pedophiles don't have a desire to rape, they have a desire for a (sexual) relationship with an minor, in fact most of the sexual abuse of minors is suspected to be done not by pedophiles but by opportunist sadists (another reason for more scientific research), pedophiles do consume most of the available child porn, so one thing that is already proven to help, though very controversial, is giving them acces to virtual childporn. next to this pedophiles (being in vast numbers also victims of sexual abuse themselves) can be helped with psycho- and behavioral-therapy next to indeed chemical castration (where for again more research is needed, chemical castration is useful for pedophiles, not sexual sadists for who rape is less about sexual urges)

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 11:29

what about the fact that there is an industry around child pornography, with child 'actors' that are regularly shared around for the purpose of profit and distribution, from the 'actor' level to the level of online hosting of material and whatnot.

also psycho, it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be, most incarcerated child sexual abusers are repeat offenders and are on sex offenders registers.

whether they have a 'desire' to rape or not is besides the point, as it is rape regardless of their own feelings about the act. this is why we do need to make some generalizations and the generalization for me is that the act of adult-child sex is unacceptable.

on the other hand, extensive research is needed for those with the problems we are discussing and we do need to be objective rather than jumping to assumptions about paedophiles. for me, number one is the protection of children which has to correlate with the research

Sasha

26th November 2013, 11:37

Oh, but i dont deny that all at all, but its important to know that there indications that most pedophiles dont abuse (outside of consumption of child porn), making an sharp distinction between pedophiles who do abuse and those who don't, making sure that pedophiles who don't abuse (yet) know that if they seek help they get it and not get persecuted, saves children, for that we need to step over our own moral disgust, again, if only for the sake of the kids.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

26th November 2013, 11:49

no disagreement here. i was pretty much talking against certain perspectives i've come across which believe that physical relationships between adults and children can occur. not saying anyone on here but there are discourses about it

Flying Purple People Eater

26th November 2013, 13:28

I don't care what a god-damned kiddy fiddler feels or thinks. The fact that they want to have sexual intercourse or relations with minors is fucked up enough.

there is a stark moral difference between pedophelia (having an atraction towards children) and pedosexuality (acting upon that desire) though, to combat the latter we need to understand the former and give pedophiles an safe way to seek help, not confusing the two is there for essential imo, not every pedophile is a child rapist.

Is this line of thinking behind why certain members suspected of pedophiliac feelings have been unbanned in the past? It's quite easy to understand a pedophile - someone who bears sexual feelings towards a minor. To class monsters like that in with homosexuals and other consenting forms of relation is disgusting, and enables and excuses pedophilia.

As someone who has had family members sexually abused by rapists who've believed they 'were in a genuine relationship with a ten year old', I would kindly advise anyone who thinks that this sort of shit is okay to stick their head in front of a bullet train.

Sasha

26th November 2013, 13:53

and thanx for proving my point, why would someone, in general someone who was abused themselves, reach out to society to help them prevent ever touching a child if that ^ is all the reaction they are bound to get. no, they will hide, they will build up the frustration and one day they will abuse a kid and people like you will, over the backs of abused and maybe dead children, gloat once again "told you all pedophiles are kiddy rapists!!"...
there are working therapies, there is help out there THAT SAVES CHILDREN and people like you prevent that help reaching pedophiles, you are the enabler, not me, so fuck you right back at you.

Remus Bleys

26th November 2013, 13:58

there are working therapies, there is help out there THAT SAVES CHILDREN
If we are under the assumption that pedosexuality is a real thing that means people are attracted to children and did not choose this - which i think it is - i do not see how therapy could work. People cannot go to therapy and forcibly change their sexual orientation - so how could someone who is attracted to children do this?

Halert

26th November 2013, 13:59

Is this line of thinking behind why certain members suspected of pedophiliac feelings have been unbanned in the past? It's quite easy to understand a pedophile - someone who bears sexual feelings towards a minor. To class monsters like that in with homosexuals and other consenting forms of relation is disgusting, and enables and excuses pedophilia.

I'm not sure what your point is.
Do you agree that it is essential that we make a distinction between pedophiles and child rapist?

Halert

26th November 2013, 14:06

If we are under the assumption that pedosexuality is a real thing that means people are attracted to children and did not choose this - which i think it is - i do not see how therapy could work. People cannot go to therapy and forcibly change their sexual orientation - so how could someone who is attracted to children do this?

why would someone chose to be attracted to children? pedophiles are hunted down in today's society there is no merit in choosing to be a pedophile.

I believe these therapies focus more on controlling one's desire. as you said changing someones sexual orientation is impossible.

Sasha

26th November 2013, 14:12

this ^ and like said before, pedophilia is different from homosexuality and heterosexuality, most research seems to indicate now that it is a extreme form of paraphilia, often rooted in pedophiles own abusive past, as such psycho therapy does work.

Remus Bleys

26th November 2013, 14:20

why would someone chose to be attracted to children? pedophiles are hunted down in today's society there is no merit in choosing to be a pedophile.
Did I imply this? No, I explicitly said the opposite. So I fail to see how this is relevant.

I believe these therapies focus more on controlling one's desire. as you said changing someones sexual orientation is impossible.
How effective is it, as compared to chemical castration?

this ^ and like said before, pedophilia is different from homosexuality and heterosexuality, most research seems to indicate now that it is a extreme form of paraphilia, often rooted in pedophiles own abusive past, as such psycho therapy does work. How effective is removing paraphilia? I honestly do not know, that is why I am asking, im just skeptical about that.

Comrade #138672

26th November 2013, 14:48

I am appalled by the idea of forcing chemical castration on pedophiles.

Also, I have heard that the chemical castration of pedosexuals does not necessarily make them less sexually abusive.

Sasha

26th November 2013, 14:56

I am appalled by the idea of forcing chemical castration on pedophiles.

Also, I have heard that the (chemical) castration of pedosexuals does not necessarily make them less sexually abusive.

as far as i heard voluntarily (!!!) chemical castration can be in some cases an important supporting tool in the therapy of pedophiles who dont want to abuse, it is completely useless in the punishment of sexual sadists who prey on kids only because they are easy/opportune targets, as sexual sadism is far less about gratifying sexual urges. the way that society/media/politics conflict the (often far more sensational/newsworthy practises of) sexual sadists with pedophilia increases the stigma for pedophiles to out themselves and seek help.

Sasha

26th November 2013, 15:04

and in contrast to what star linn was saying it is so that many pedosexuals believe that they are in an healthy, consensual relationship with their "partners", which is obviously not true but it is what they believe.
only this week an researcher published a paper how important it is to talk about sexual abuse with your children and learn them to protest or cry if someone, esp when a relative or family friend does something with them that they dont want, the way kids tend to freeze up or start to giggle etc in abuse situations confirms in the minds of pedosexuals consent, apparently if the kids starts crying most pedophiles back off. they are not inherently evil people, they are messed up, socially handicapped people who need help, not persecution. again not even for their sake, but it saves children and breaks the cycle of abuse, thats what is important.

Magic Carpets Corp.

26th November 2013, 15:08

Some people just aren't worth keeping around to be honest. Pedophiles especially. Who gives a fuck whether or not pedophilia is a sexual orientation or a "social/psychological construct". Just put the pathetic animals out of their misery and the problem is solved. Jesus. I'd really hate to live in a society so worthless that public safety is trumped by the desires of pedophiles not to be castrated.

I'm inherently suspicious of those that act as apologists and champions of pedophiles. Why? Do you feel a sort of kinship with them?

Sasha

26th November 2013, 15:15

how are you going to know who is a pedophile in your (mass murder of millions) scenario?
i doubt many non-abusing pedophiles will step forward and say "hey kill me" (even though pedophiles have an very high risk of suicide so it might be more than you would think).
so your idea of stopping sexual abuse is sitting on our arses and wait till someone gets caught and then get some moral satisfaction fix out of killing them, while another kid or a whole bunch of kids got hurt and are under stark increased risk of becoming sexual abusers themselves. shees, the war on drugs makes more sense that this stupid macho posturing.

Halert

26th November 2013, 15:27

How effective is it, as compared to chemical castration?

people will not come forward as being pedophiles if you do that and they will remain in hiding until it is to late.

If you offer them a therapy they might come forward and we can stop them before it is to late.

if you take that in to consideration therapy is more effective.

Geiseric

26th November 2013, 16:16

Pedophiles may of been victims in the past which may of messed up their head, in fact is say that happens more often than not. However its their responsibilIty to get help before desire becomes action, because they have in fact learned what is and isn't acceptable. There are a lot of pedophiles in my town.

Flying Purple People Eater

26th November 2013, 16:18

This is just fucking hilarious.

As if pedophiles see themselves as needing 'curing and therapy'. Bullshit. This is one of the most common excuses peddled by pedophiles when trying to excuse sexual behavior or attitudes towards children.

It doesn't matter, as MCC said, whether sexual attraction to minors is something people are born with or not - the fact that this relationship is not and can never be consensual is. I couldn't give a fuck about a pedophile's inner struggles when there are children hanging from the tree of future victims while they are out there.

Not to mention that there have been studies to show that pedophilia is not an inborn sexual attraction like homosexuality, much like many other fetishes which fluctuate with exposure. An example is with sexual Japanese media - there are enormous amounts of pornographic Japanese media that depict people as either blatantly underage or nearly underage (and I am talking children here) that 'want sex', and this media has had tremendous sales. I believe that there is even a sexual fetish current attached to this pedophiliac shit. As I highly doubt that the majority of the people who've bought such things were solely pedophiles who solely are attracted to little children, the whole 'sexual orientation' crap starts to crumble quite a bit.

Also, even if the idea of pedophilia being an inborn sexual orientation was the truth, wouldn't that contradict your previous statements - that therapy is the best treatment? If pedophilia really is an inborn sexual orientation (which I highly doubt it is, as many sexual fetishes, besides sexual attraction depending on actual gender, have been known to fluctuate and change), then therapy is not going to affect pedophiles one iota.

I didn't expect the blatant child molester apologism on this board to be so blunt. :laugh:
I mean fucking seriously? Pedophiles are not the victims, no matter how many times they cry that they 'can't help it' or that 'the child was seducing them' (both lines championed by famous rapists, IIRC).

Sasha

26th November 2013, 16:29

did you even read my (and others their) posts? start using your brain instead of your underbelly, like i said before, you are the enabler here, you are the one driving people towards sexual abuse of children, not us.

Remus Bleys

26th November 2013, 16:47

you are the one driving people towards sexual abuse of children,
read this sentence outloud to yourself and see how it doesn't make any sense.
can we keep this thread respectful from both sides

Sasha

26th November 2013, 17:04

what is going to help, saying;
"sexual feelings towards children are wrong but we are going to help you"
or
"sexual feelings towards children make you despicable piece of shit only worthy of a torturous death and if you only allude to it to one single adult we are going to hunt you down as an pack of wolves"
?

i'm serious, the dominant discour on pedophilia represented here strongest by starlinn is hurting children, killing children, i feel pretty strongly about that.

Remus Bleys

26th November 2013, 17:09

Star Linn's revleft rhetoric doesn't do shit in regards to hurting children.

adipocere

26th November 2013, 17:42

Well I would like to point out that practically everyone has a brush with a pervert as a child. I've never met a single person who wasn't at least flashed at some point by an adult and frequently much worse.
I think we should not be focusing on how to deal with perverts, but how to deal with a society that enables them. First of all, we teach our children to be extremely differential to authority/adults and yet at the same time we teach our children to fear strangers. Children also learn very early that their body parts are dirty and private. We also have a host of our own sexual hangups and as a result, the sex education of children begins fairly late and centers around telling children how their dirty private parts function and how using them irresponsibly will ruin their lives. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that we have a society young children who unquestioningly respect adults, are scared as shit of strangers, and who are made to feel deeply ashamed of their bodies, and our culture denies the prevalence of perverts. (Children, of course are not responsible for their abuse. However, in a punitive society there is little concern with prevention - and part of the prevention is for people to stop denying how common perverts are and trying to empower children so that they don't become victims in the first place.)

So we invariably have this perfect scenario for what on the surface seems like an exception, but in reality is closer to the rule. The biggest thrill perverts get it is in the control over vulnerable children - our society makes them extremely vulnerable. If a child is molested by a relative, they should not fear telling a stranger. If a child is molested by a stranger, they should not mind them because the pervert is an adult. If they werent ashamed of their bodies, they might not end up all emotionally fucked up over it. If we could just admit to ourselves how many men are perverts, creeps and pedophiles...then maybe we wouldn't have so many kids(& women) become victims of them.

Seeing people talk about the need for pedophiles to release their sexual desires in a healthy way and so on makes me me want to scream. I'm so sick of people acting like blowing a wad is some biological function on par with breathing. But that of course is a different issue all together. I do wish people would stop talking about pedophiles as if it is even about sex. It's about mentally shit brained people who solve their power issues on the bodies of small people because they can get away with it. Physical violence, rape and murder are not far behind.

And of course all of this (crime, pedophilia, rape, murder) thrives under patriarchal capitalism - the more unequal the society, the more vibrant and vicious the criminals - as capitalism is an inherently violent social structure. An equitable, communist society is the only real solution. Whatever perverts remain can be dealt with individually then.

Art Vandelay

26th November 2013, 19:15

How effective is removing paraphilia? I honestly do not know, that is why I am asking, im just skeptical about that.

This I'm not entirely sure about and I really don't pretend to have much knowledge on the subject other than the stuff I've picked up through my job, but I've seen first hand therapy and medication be effective with an individual who truly does not want to act on their sexual thoughts.

This is just fucking hilarious. As if pedophiles see themselves as needing 'curing and therapy'. Bullshit.

That is not complete bullshit. It might be for the vast majority of people who have sexual attractions to minors, but certainly not all of them and I've seen it first hand.

Some people just aren't worth keeping around to be honest. Pedophiles especially.

I sincerely want to know whether or not you'd take this same approach with an individual like the one I alluded to on the first page? Same question to you Star Linn.

I didn't expect the blatant child molester apologism on this board to be so blunt.

Anyone who wants to accuse me of being a child molester apologist convicts themselves of being (1) very stupid and (2) having a very tenuous grasp on the English language.

Flying Purple People Eater

27th November 2013, 02:07

you are the enabler here, you are the one driving people towards sexual abuse of children, not us.

:laugh:

This is just too much.

So let me get this straight. Normalising, defending and apologising for pedophiliac behavior disables child sexual abuse, whereas taking a stand against it like any form of sexual abuse is not?

As someone who has lived in a neighbourhood with a very large number of child sexual assault cases every year, 'counselling' a child predator is not and has not been helpful in keeping rates down. Hunting them down and staging stings, however, has been immensely effective. You seem to be under the illusion that we should somehow feel remorseful for someone who wants to sexually engage with a child.

You're nothing but a fool if you think not falling for kiddy fiddler apologism is 'enabling those poor and addicted pedophiles'.

I wonder why you people are so intent on defending people with these deranged ideas of 'consensual relations' between fucking ten year olds and thirty year olds, who often commit acts of sexual abuse. Do you know someone who is a pedophile or something?

That is not complete bullshit. It might be for the vast majority of people who have sexual attractions to minors, but certainly not all of them and I've seen it first hand.

I sincerely want to know whether or not you'd take this same approach with an individual like the one I alluded to on the first page? Same question to you Star Linn.

Well it's great that you've met and sympathised with people who have possibly even sexually abused children before who say that they need help and therapy, but I have no idea why you think this changes anything. The same can be said for rapists who have done the same thing.

I'd say what's more telling is your misguided idea of rapists and pedophiles being creepy old men in vans. Pedophiles and rapists can be anyone, from any walk of life. I don't judge people on their looks - I judge people on their beliefs and actions. And I'd judge someone who wants to sexually assault minors to the bottom of a Hyena filled ravine.

Anyone who wants to accuse me of being a child molester apologist convicts themselves of being (1) very stupid and (2) having a very tenuous grasp on the English language.

I guess I'm a very stupid person who cannot properly comprehend the English language then, because to me you are doing just that.

Art Vandelay

27th November 2013, 02:38

Well it's great that you've met and sympathised with people who have possibly even sexually abused children before who say that they need help and therapy, but I have no idea why you think this changes anything. .

No, your just spewing ignorant nonsense about the very specific situation I brought up. No this person has not "maybe even molested a child." He is a mentally challenged man in his early twenties who has spent the majority of his life in group homes and who since living on his own (with 24hr staff), has been nothing but an upstanding member of his community and is one of the most empathetic and kind people I have ever met, which is why he would never and has never hurt another person. His only crime is that his mother was prescribed epilepsy medicine while pregnant that lead to him being born with a whole host of issues. Fucking despicable you'd lump him in with your average pedophile, despicable; let alone your allusion to wanting to have him murdered.

#FF0000

27th November 2013, 02:59

If we are under the assumption that pedosexuality is a real thing that means people are attracted to children and did not choose this - which i think it is - i do not see how therapy could work. People cannot go to therapy and forcibly change their sexual orientation - so how could someone who is attracted to children do this?

I would imagine that sort of therapy would be more about managing and suppressing urges.

I wonder if pedophilia is something you're born with, though. After all, most abusers were victims of abuse themselves at some point. Makes me think there might be a big "learned behavior" aspect of it.

hatzel

27th November 2013, 03:26

@Star Linn:

Not sure I'm hearing you correctly. First you vehemently deny that paedophilia is an inherent sexual orientation/characteristic that people are simply born with and can do nothing to change. Then you argue equally vehemently that creating a situation where these changeable, non-inherently paedophilic individuals can be given the necessary psychiatric treatment in order to change is facilitating the abuse of children, seemingly due to the idea that a paedophile always has and always will desire to abuse children, a leopard cannot change its spots and trying to make it so is an exercise in futility...

Please make up your mind. Is paedophilia a fundamental characteristic, or an accidental attribute? Are paedophiles born or made? What leads these people to such desires? If paedophilia is not an inherent sexual orientation, but something picked up in life for whatever reason, why can something else not be picked up in life to put a stop to an individual's paedophilia? If an individual's paedophilia cannot be shaken through treatment, instead being an eternal characteristic, why is the suggestion that it is a sexual orientation akin to homosexuality or whatever else totally unacceptable? Basically what I'm saying is that you're being inconsistent in your conception of what paedophilia actually is, which is far from useful when you're forwarding solutions to deal with it (even though you are yet to have offered a cogent solution; I can't tell whether you're talking roving mobs or public executions or lengthy prison sentences or whatever else, and how this fits into a broader context of crime and punishment)

Sasha

27th November 2013, 12:34

:laugh:

So let me get this straight. Normalising, defending and apologising for pedophiliac behavior disables child sexual abuse, whereas taking a stand against it like any form of sexual abuse is not?

your not taking a stand, you are part of the problem, one of the reasons pedophiles end op abusing kids is because they are not getting the help they need TO NOT ABUSE KIDS, the reason pedosexuals (not sexual sadists) kill kids is not becuase they get a thrill from it but because they are afraid of society finding out what they have done. The stupid kneejerk attitude that you have displayed through out this thread, the attitude which even makes it impossible to even read my posts where i constantly said that my position is based on science and SAVES KIDS FROM ABUSE AND MURDER is the same kneejerk attitude that dominates society at larges which prevents more research, more treatment, and prevents potential abusers coming forward BEFORE THEY ABUSE KIDS and makes abusers KILL KIDS because they are more afraid of being found out an child abuser than an child murderer. so yes, you and your ilk have created an environment thats hurting and killing kids and perpetuate that.

As someone who has lived in a neighbourhood with a very large number of child sexual assault cases every year, 'counselling' a child predator is not and has not been helpful in keeping rates down. Hunting them down and staging stings, however, has been immensely effective. You seem to be under the illusion that we should somehow feel remorseful for someone who wants to sexually engage with a child.take your strawmans and shove them, i dont feel remorseful for any child abuser, i want an approach towards pedophiles and sexual abuse that actually saves children from sexual abuse, one that is based in scientific reality instead of the easy moralist fixes of the tabloid reading public.

You're nothing but a fool if you think not falling for kiddy fiddler apologism is 'enabling those poor and addicted pedophiles'.

I wonder why you people are so intent on defending people with these deranged ideas of 'consensual relations' between fucking ten year olds and thirty year olds, who often commit acts of sexual abuse. Do you know someone who is a pedophile or something?
yes, everyone who wants the failing system replaces for an working approach towards combating pedophilia and child abuse is really an secret kiddie rapist themselves just like anyone who wants to do away with the war on drugs must be a junkie or a dealer.
maybe you should take a job at foxnews.

and to answer you cheap insinuations, besides knowing several other people who are victims of horrific sexual abuse i happen to be friends with one of the victims of Ian Watkins of LostProphets who is now under the judge for a whole string of rapes including two babys. even while i'm physically sick with what the asshole has done and i hope he gets shanked in prison i will still stand by the things i advocated in this thread 100%, because it saves children from exactly these kinds of things. and no, we will never save each and every child from abuse, but it works a whole fucking lot better than what we are doing now, you know, where we are actually getting kids hurt and killed...

Nihilism

29th November 2013, 03:50

I would imagine that sort of therapy would be more about managing and suppressing urges.

I wonder if pedophilia is something you're born with, though. After all, most abusers were victims of abuse themselves at some point. Makes me think there might be a big "learned behavior" aspect of it.

Perhaps it could be both genetic and environmental? Sort of like Sociopaths? I would assume most things are a little of both, although I don't know for sure.

The authoritarianism in this thread.

"I don't care if they were abused, chose to be attracted to children or not. we should just kill them all."

Yes, let's kill anyone who has thoughts of hurting another, even if they don't act on those thoughts.

xxxxxx666666

29th November 2013, 05:22

Believe it or not, according to this, there are child molesters that are NOT pedophiles, take this for example:

"The other side of the misperception is all child molesters are pedophiles. This too is not always the case. There are sexual offenses committed by individuals that do not meet the criteria for pedophilia as described previously. There are offenders that are impulsive (Hazelwood and Warren, 2001) and although their fantasies may be deviant in nature, do not focus on children."

http://www.deviantcrimes.com/childmolesters.htm

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th November 2013, 20:40

yeah but most convicted child molesters are actually peadophiles.

what you're doing is like saying most convicted murderers did it accidentally and should be tried for manslaughter

Sasha

29th November 2013, 20:56

No, he is saying that there huge holes in our understanding of childabuse, pedosexuality and pedophilia, we need more research. Yet this is a subject stifeld by assumptions, generalisations, ignorance etc etc.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

29th November 2013, 21:12

no one has denied the fact we need more research. the only generalization made here is that children should be protected.

xxxxxx666666

29th November 2013, 21:42

yeah but most convicted child molesters are actually peadophiles.

what you're doing is like saying most convicted murderers did it accidentally and should be tried for manslaughter

Yea? :mad: Well you should know that there is " voluntary manslaughter", where someone murders (or kills another human begin) on purpose (Yes, ON purpose) and gets tried for manslaughter, so yes this happens.

Here's wiki link, read up voluntary manslaughter (this is for US laws):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_%28United_States_law%29

And besides, how do we know that " most convicted child molesters are actually peadophiles"? (or pedophiles as the correct spelling may be)

Bias may have inflated the actual number of pedophiles that are actually pedophiles AND child molesters!!! :ohmy:
(in fact, I know this is true, please continue reading)

no one has denied the fact we need more research. the only generalization made here is that children should be protected.

And how do you suggest we do this?

And aren't you generalizing a lot yourself, especially about pedophiles?

(In case you are wondering why I'm defending them, it is because I believe ALL peoples deserve a fair trial and be seen as individuals instead of a general mass of clones, which is how, sadly, some people see certain minorities and *other* peoples of certain types)

Especially when:

"True Pedophiles are responsible for only a small percentage of child sexual molestations. Half of child sexual abusers are the parents of the victims; other relatives commit an additional 18% of the offenses."

Source:
http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/sexualassault/pedophilia_and_molestation.htm

From the above link:
"All Pedophiles are child molesters, but very few child molesters are Pedophiles. Pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation that involves exclusive attraction to prepubescent children (male or female, generally not both). Child sexual molesters may be sexually attracted to males and/or females and are generally not particular about their age; convenience and easy access are their prime concerns."

Now I disagree with that "all pedophiles are child molesters", I think that's just all the ones that are actually caught and the(should I say?) "distaste" for pedophiles in general. There could be ones repressing their pedophilic urges next to you right now! And that pedophile hasn't even molested any children whatsoever, and given the hatred for pedophiles in general, it is unlikely a pedophile will say "Hey! Here I am! A pedophile! Yes! That's correct! I'm a pedophile! I haven't molested any children in my whole life even though I'm sexually attracted to them!" at least until we become "nicer" as a society, so *ALL* pedophiles are child molesters is false, at least I think so.

But what is interesting, to me at least, is the following statement "but very few child molesters are Pedophiles."

So, "very few child molesters are Pedophiles" drill that into your head for a bit and think about it.

Lily Briscoe

29th November 2013, 23:16

Here's a fairly good example of the sort of behavior that is promoted by the stupid lynchmob mentality on this issue, exemplified in this thread by people like Star Linn:

A man who killed a disabled neighbour in a vicious vigilante attack because he wrongly believed he was a paedophile will serve at least 18 years in prison for what the judge branded an "act of murderous injustice".

Lee James, 24, murdered Bijan Ebrahimi two days after police arrested the victim following unfounded complaints that he had a sexual interest in children.

Ebrahimi, a 44-year-old Iranian refugee described as gentle and harmless by his family, died after James repeatedly stamped on his head. James and another neighbour, Stephen Norley, 25, then dragged his body from his Bristol (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/bristol) maisonette on to a triangle of grass, doused it with white spirit and set it alight. Norley was jailed for four years for assisting an offender.

Police have apologised for failing to protect Ebrahimi, who had been subjected to a campaign of harassment, and the police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), is investigating 11 officers and staff over the tragedy. Three officers who had dealings with Ebrahimi have been interviewed under criminal caution by IPCC investigators for the potential offence of misconduct in public office.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi

The Feral Underclass

29th November 2013, 23:19

Both the American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists characterise paedophilia as a treatable mental disorder. A mental disorder being a psychological/behavioural abnormality that inhibits normal developmental social functions.

There are common characteristics between paedophiles that research has uncovered, such as having a low IQ, low self-esteem, signs of psychopathy, impaired interpersonal functions and difficulty in self-conceptualisation.

The issue here is quite simple: Those who act on their compulsions should be removed from society and treated (in the same way as schizophrenics who behead people are) and for those who are living with this disorder and who have not acted on their compulsions (such as the vast majority of those living with schizophrenia) should be treated in a way that recognises the burden of their mental disorders and afforded the same compassion and help as any one who is suffering.

Edit: I mis-described APA.

Geiseric

30th November 2013, 18:17

Art Vandelay

30th November 2013, 18:58

Sasha

30th November 2013, 19:26

You simply can't compare pedophilia with schizophrenia, that could be seen as insulting. also I'd like a source about the mentally ill thing. So all of those Catholic priests were simply mentally ill?

No, most catholic priests that abuse kids are probably not pedophiles but opportunist rapists, the fact that many focussed on older children and besides pre-pubescents also abused teens or employed male escorts seems to confirm that.

The Feral Underclass

30th November 2013, 22:19

You simply can't compare pedophilia with schizophrenia, that could be seen as insulting.

They are both treatable mental disorders, so why can't I?

also I'd like a source about the mentally ill thing.

Source (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/pedophilia-mental.aspx)

So all of those Catholic priests were simply mentally ill?

How would I know that?

The Feral Underclass

30th November 2013, 22:36

You simply can't compare pedophilia with schizophrenia, that could be seen as insulting. also I'd like a source about the mentally ill thing. So all of those Catholic priests were simply mentally ill?

The World Health Organisation also classifies it as a mental illness: Direct source (http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf) and incidental source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10149574/Paedophilia-is-a-treatable-illness.html)

RedBen

30th November 2013, 23:14

i don't think anyone here is trying to defend child abusers, i think everyone here wants to prevent it from happening, and if it does, that there are severe consequences. i think some people are having a hard time accepting that education, and preventative measures are not encouraging this type of behavior. but then again, what the fuck do i know? i'm gonna grab a beer and enjoy any continued shit slinging, we're looking real good here people.

Sasha

30th November 2013, 23:15

But then again they scratched homosexuality that long ago... But yeah, there seems to be a connection between pedophilia and impaired mental development.

The Feral Underclass

30th November 2013, 23:25

I had a debate on Twitter about this subject recently due to the huge hysteria that the Ian Watkins case generated. Many people kept comparing homosexuality and paedophilia, trying to refute my evidence by saying that leading psychological and psychiatric institutions used to identify homosexuality as a mental disorder.

The premise of that is to equate the consensual relationships between two adults with the abusive and inherently violent, manipulative nature of the adult rape of pre-pubescent children.

Depending on your views about what homosexuality is, if we follow the premise of these positions to their conclusion then what people are essentially saying is that there is a possibility that paedophilia is somehow a "natural" inter-human dynamic...Unless of course people want to argue that homosexuality is not a natural inter-human dynamic?

Yes. Psychologists and psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. They were wrong. They are not wrong about paedophilia and I would like to see any one try and argue otherwise.

Sasha

30th November 2013, 23:36

I think you are right, just playing the devil's advocate...

Glitchcraft

30th November 2013, 23:49

This conversation is no different. Half you will applaud any expansion of state power into our private lives as long as it says protecting children somewhere in there. I don't believe most people here actually care about child abuse at all. You just want to bait people into condemning age of consent laws so they will be immediately banned and you can purge the message boards of your political opposition.
On this topic: age of consent and statutory rape laws, you are only allowed to side with the state while posting to revleft. Any discourse rationally examining these topics leads to immediate banning, with no discussion, no warnings, no community input.
So just admit what doing. Baiting ICL and IG sympathizers so you can purge the forums of your political opponents. It's dishonest and it's cowardly. I started a thread on Kaitlyn Hunt and it caused 2 bans and was immediately trashed by the reactionary mods, because according to all of your bs politics supporting or defending her is a bannable offense. But you do defend her, so you trash the thread rather than have to explain, lie and backpedal on all your previous statements. Cowards!

Sasha

1st December 2013, 00:14

yeah no, we are trying to have an earnest and fact based discussion on a pressing matter, and the creeps like you come in and ruin it for everyone again and again...

so one clear warning, this thread is NOT about age of consent laws, this thread is NOT about ephobihilia, take it off topic towards that direction and yes, you will get the boot.

Flying Purple People Eater

1st December 2013, 01:29

khad

1st December 2013, 06:10

P.S. wasn't this troll banned after he defended the Saudi baron's little princess for having slaves with her in the US and getting away scott-free?
Seriously? Where was this?

Evo2

1st December 2013, 07:04

BUT if paedophilia is a sexual orientation

Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation

Sexual orientation is broken down into same sex attraction (Homosexuality), opposite sex attraction (Heterosexuality) or both (Bisexuality).

A Paedophile can be attracted to girls only, and so would be a heterosexual paedophile, or boys only and so would be a homosexual paedophile, or attracted to both (Bisexuality).

Sexuality determines the outlet for paedophilia, but is not the cause of it.

For example, I'm a gay man but yet I'm not a paedophile as I am not attracted to children (and the very idea sickens me) just like there are heterosexuals and bisexuals here who are not attracted to children.

Remus Bleys

1st December 2013, 07:07

Paedophilia is not a sexual orientation

Sexual orientation is broken down into same sex attraction (Homosexuality), opposite sex attraction (Heterosexuality) or both (Bisexuality).

A Paedophile can be attracted to girls only, and so would be a heterosexual paedophile, or boys only and so would be a homosexual paedophile, or attracted to both (Bisexuality).

Sexuality determines the outlet for paedophilia, but is not the cause of it.

For example, I'm a gay man but yet I'm not a paedophile as I am not attracted to children (and the very idea sickens me) just like there are heterosexuals and bisexuals here who are not attracted to children.
Sexual Orientation is a lot more complicated than what the modern christian dominated wet makes it out to be...

Evo2

1st December 2013, 07:12

Sexual Orientation is a lot more complicated than what the modern christian dominated wet makes it out to be...

My definition stands

If you like boys then you are a gay paedophile, and visa versa

Sexual = Sexual attraction

Orientation = The outlet where that sexual attraction is expressed

So, to slightly amend my last statement, paedophilia can be classed as a sexual orientation, which can be broken down into gay, straight or bi

sosolo

1st December 2013, 19:02

My definition stands

If you like boys then you are a gay paedophile, and visa versa

Sexual = Sexual attraction

Orientation = The outlet where that sexual attraction is expressed

So, to slightly amend my last statement, paedophilia can be classed as a sexual orientation, which can be broken down into gay, straight or bi

No. Just no. Pedophilia is not about sexual orientation. It is a paraphilia. When one has a compulsion to sexually abuse pre-pubescent children, it is a sickness. Gay and straight pedophiles is nonsense, and leads to gay witch hunts like those of the Catholic Church, b/c the majority of their victims were boys, ergo it must be a "gay problem".

Utter rubbish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

The Feral Underclass

2nd December 2013, 12:33

Actually, research shows that diagnosed paedophiles tend to be sexually aroused by both male and female pre-pubescent children. This was the case with Ian Watkins, for example.

Tolstoy

2nd December 2013, 12:52

I think the issue of child molestation is something that troubles us all deeply, and if theres anything that makes me want to abandon my ideal that the only evil is ignorance, than child molestation would be it.

Still (and as a rape victim I grit my teeth when I say this) pedophilia needs to be treated like any other mental health issue and mental health issues should be treated like any other medical issue, as the brain is ultimately just another organ, in spite of itss sheer complexity.

I would advocate clear means for said individuals to obtain therapy, either anonymously, though I would prefer mental health issues not to have stigmataization. As for those truly awful Jerry Sandusky-ites who actually act upon their crimes and really are truly broken, I would advocate isolating them from general society, but not in the profit generating rape camps that are the prison system (which I want to abolish) but simply something similar to house arrest

Sinister Cultural Marxist

3rd December 2013, 03:17

If someone doesn't act on an urge they should not receive any social condemnation when they consciously try to take therapy to avoid it. People don't chose what they're attracted to sexually any more than they chose what tastes good. Those who act on desires are another matter.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 04:37

Well what I am saying does pertain to the protection of children.
Any sexual act perpetrated on some one under 16 is a felony, despite the age of the perpetrator.
Many states have 25 year mandatory minimum sentencing applying to people as young as 14, with a minimum 10 years of being registered sex offender. The Adam Walsh Child protection Act of 2006 pertains to any one 14 years old and older. The overwhelming number of people who first register as a sex offender are between the ages of 16 and 20. There are currently over 20,000 minors under the age of 16 that are on sex registries. If you are 16 years old and have sex with another 16 year old you are committing a felony in almost every state. Recently in Arizona a 10 year old boy was sentenced to five years of probation, and he's being forced to register as a sex offender for engaging in sex acts with other boys. A woman in Texas lost her children for 4 months after developing naked pictures of Barbie Dolls. Children as young as 7 have been prosecuted for playing doctor. Teenagers are being prosecuted in several states for sexting, now being both the perpetrator and the victim at the same time. This is how the expansion of child pornography and child molestation legislation has harmed children.

The agenda of expanding punishment for minors goes hand in hand with the "treatment" industry or the sex abuse therapy industry. When you talk about treatment your talking about groups like National Perpetrator Network which has a set of standards that define the overwhelming majority of males as guilty of some type of molestation before they were 18. Your talking about Church sponsored "Pray the Gay Away" style therapy. What kind of therapy do you think the American Family Association provides? What kind of role do you think the National law center for children and families plays.

Therapists are now legally "Mandatory reporters". So if a fifteen year old in custody admits to having sex with another fifteen year old that therapist is obligated to report it to the authorities so that they can wrangle more children and parents into the system of punishment and therapy. There's money to be made in treatment so there's real incentive to expand the law. The business of therapy is just as corrupt and oppressive as the private prison system in fact the two operate in tandem. The child predator task force and the child pornography agencies of the state are constantly trying to validate their expansion and their budgets by ruthlessly prosecuting as many cases as possible, the more the law is expanded the more cases they can prosecute the more they can expand their budget and influence. Why does this need explaining how it leads to endless prosecution of the innocent. Teens trapped in this system experience extremely high rates of suicide.
Once these laws are made they are almost never abolished. Unlike the stand your ground law or affirmative action theres zero political currency in trying to get these laws off the books.

There's a reason that we should be against the expansion of the law, not just because it's some kind of Leninist dogma but because it is greatly harmful to children, to families, to all of us.
What has the states role in protecting children been so far? The only notable federal government sex education program that was ever enacted was the chastity law in 1982 pushing the abstinence only education in schools, . what happened..? teen pregnancy went up.
Do we need a lesson in the police track record of domestic violence?
If the state can't keep our women safe why do you think they can keep our children safe? Where are the battered womens task forces? There's a gang unit why no Mom unit? If your trying to protect children why not start with keeping the mothers safe? police officers themselves are so often the perpetrators of domestic violence why would they care about the children of people they are paid to oppress?

People on sex offender registries are often not allowed to live around their own children. At least 13 states require sex offender registration for public urination, Flashing your breasts can get you arrested for indecent exposure in California and put on a sex offender registry. Show your Tits Loose your kids: How much more expansion do you want?

A child is 22 times more likely to be molested in a household making less than 30,000. What do you think the real solution is. Apparently you think it's hyperbolic screaming for the execution of pedophiles?

But rationally disusing this topic is such an abhorrently objectionable thing to do in this den of reactionaries. Just admit your wrong. There are hundreds if not thousands of these stories in all other forms of media. This issue is only getting bigger as more and more innocent people are being incarcerated and unfairly punished and the bulk of you are cheer-leading the state as it turns our children into criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandated_reporter#External_links
http://www.businessinsider.com/should-children-be-prosecuted-as-sex-offenders-2013-10
http://www.cafety.org/about-us
http://www.kempe.org/napn
http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/report_juvsex_offend/sum.html

xxxxxx666666

3rd December 2013, 05:18

Ok, Glitchcraft, I've looked up your "child is 22 times more likely to be molested in a household making less than 30,000."

Well, it's "child abuse and neglect" which is not in the links Glitchcraft included (at least from what I can read so far), and the form of child abuse may not be molestion (though the two may be used interchangeably; abuse may also be hitting, verbal, and so forth, the most common form of child maltreatment, according to the pdf Glitchcraft provided which is the reporting of child maltreatment in the United States up to 2009, is neglect(78.3%), followed by physical abuse(17.8), then "others"(9.6%), then sexual abuse(9.5%), then Psychological Maltreatment (7.6%), then Medical Neglect(2.4%) and lastly, unknown (0.3%).

"The single best predictor of child abuse and neglect is poverty. One study found that a child living in a family with an annual income of $15,000 or less is 22 times more likely to be abused than one living in a family with an income of $30,000 or more."

http://www.everychildmatters.org/state-campaigns/colorado/we-can-do-better

I'll still stand by NOT executing pedophiles nor stigmatizing pedophiles in general, for reasons I've already stated, and if that is what Glitchcraft is suggesting, I protest and strongly disagree. People who abuse others (like children): yes, pedophiles in general: no. And yes, I think it's hyperbolic screaming for the execution of pedophiles, the problem are the people who purposely and malicely do hurtful things to another without another's will or consent.

Oh, by the way I think that all this innocent people are being incarcerated and unfairly punished may be due to general fear of sexual "deviants", and all the more reason to STOP stigmatizing pedophiles and others who differ sexually from us.

For example, going on the data why don't more "innocent people" get incarcerated and punished [I]en masse for child neglect?

After all neglect is the most common form of child maltreatment: shouldn't, if government really were into protecting children, more parents and caretarkers now be afraid of letting children out of their sights and thus never allowing neglect to ever occur?

Maybe this speaks more of the fear of sex that of really protecting children.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 06:42

Ok, Glitchcraft,
I'll still stand by NOT executing pedophiles

I never addressed you personally.

Oh, by the way I think that all this innocent people are being incarcerated and unfairly punished may be due to general fear of sexual "deviants" after all, and all the more reason to STOP stigmatizing pedophiles and others who differ sexually from us.

For example, going on the data why don't more "innocent people" get incarcerated and punished en mass for child neglect?

After all neglect is the most common form of child maltreatment?

Maybe this speaks more of the fear of sex that of really protecting children.The Therapy Industry would almost seem to be the sexist homophobic wing of the racist state. But what It really speaks to is the institutional abuse of children and child abuse industry that is making billions. How do you think capitalist regimes deal with social issues? In some benevolent manor from a neutral standpoint?

The issue on this website is you are banned for advocating against that institution. It is an oppressive regime terrorizing it's people. And these fake leftists condemn critical examination of these institutions. And instead :

In any case, I fully support the state ripping you away from the enslaved children you want to rape. I also support you falling into a pit of spikes laced with hydrochloric acid. Fucking pig.

xxxxxx666666

3rd December 2013, 06:47

AmilcarCabral

3rd December 2013, 07:22

Humans are not a piece of cake, Schopenhauer said that animals do harm, torture and kill for survival motives, but humans according to him are cruel and evil. In the book The Prince by Machiavelli, he said that humans are inmoral and evil and that it is fear of punishment what forces humans to be good. And from an evolution and scientific point of view, I think that most crimes are caused by humans still living in the egocentric stage, humans haven't evolved toward an altruist mental state. I think that thru socialism and communism humans will evolve finally toward rational altruist creatures

.

Of all the things that makes me lose faith in humanity and question my beliefs (which is anarcho-syndicalism by the way) nothing does it more than the sickening act which is child abuse. Not even reading story's of murder can sicken me more, this is perhaps because my step-grandfather attempted (as far as my memory can open up it was only an attempt) to abuse me when I was around 6-7.

Though I firmly believe that many 'crimes' as they are now known in current society such as murder, theft, rape etc. can be prevented in an anarchist society through simple changes in the education program, the abolishment of class difference and private property, the simple teaching of morals such as gender equality and consciousness raising, pedophilia is one which deeply concerns me.

As a sociology student I always look at things from a cause and effect perspective and try and work out what sort of factors can take place to cause someone to commit a 'crime'. Pedophilia is very confusing though as there seems to clear cut causes. Though it's absolutely sickening some have claimed that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. I am open to the idea that this may be true, but I really hope it is not as if it is it's something which can't be prevented.

Of course in current society it isn't prevented a such. It's merely 'punished' and they look to rehabilitate the offender (which is of course almost impossible IF it is a sexual orientation) whilst also preventing them from carrying out more attacks whilst they're in jail.

I believe that rather than having a law based system an anarchist society would work by teaching good and proper morals, such as respect for fellow human beings and to share rather than bringing a child up from birth to only look after themselves and to be greedy. BUT if pedophilia is a sexual orientation how can we ensure that they don't abuse many, many children if caught if their is no prison system?

This is perhaps the one single issue that I am constantly trying to suss out. Luckily it is the one argument I haven't heard against my ideology as it is probably the single one which I would have no logical response to!

So anyone have any suggestions or believe that it is a thing that isn't an orientation but a social or psychological construct which can be prevented?

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 07:48

Ok, Glitchcraft, I'm sorry and I stand corrected. :)

As to the capitalist regimes, their purpose is to make money as well as perhaps work to enforce any views that the leaders may see fit.

However, I disagree that people here are "fake leftists", after all, there are people on this board that agrees with me on not going after ALL pedophiles, in fact I think most of them do (I think).
advocating against age of consent laws is a ban able offense on revleft. Those mods that ban users for posting ICL articles addressing these topics are the fakes leftists I'm talking about. I believe these topics are commonly used to purge the message boards of political opposition.

Art Vandelay

3rd December 2013, 08:03

Sinister Cultural Marxist

3rd December 2013, 08:19

advocating against age of consent laws is a ban able offense on revleft. Those mods that ban users for posting ICL articles addressing these topics are the fakes leftists I'm talking about. I believe these topics are commonly used to purge the message boards of political opposition.

Yeah well maybe there were people who were abused as children here or who know those who were?

Many states have 25 year mandatory minimum sentencing applying to people as young as 14, with a minimum 10 years of being registered sex offender. The Adam Walsh Child protection Act of 2006 pertains to any one 14 years old and older. The overwhelming number of people who first register as a sex offender are between the ages of 16 and 20. There are currently over 20,000 minors under the age of 16 that are on sex registries. If you are 16 years old and have sex with another 16 year old you are committing a felony in almost every state. Recently in Arizona a 10 year old boy was sentenced to five years of probation, and he's being forced to register as a sex offender for engaging in sex acts with other boys. A woman in Texas lost her children for 4 months after developing naked pictures of Barbie Dolls. Children as young as 7 have been prosecuted for playing doctor. Teenagers are being prosecuted in several states for sexting, now being both the perpetrator and the victim at the same time. This is how the expansion of child pornography and child molestation legislation has harmed children. It's juvenile of you to strawman people on this forum as justifying obvious abuses of the law by DAs looking to boost their appearance when they are criticizing pedophiles. Nobody on this forum supports sending a 19 year old to jail for sleeping with a 17 year old. People are taking issue with things like child prostitution, child pornography and people manipulating, say, family members or children they find on the street for their own sexual desires.

Also:

If you are 16 years old and have sex with another 16 year old you are committing a felony in almost every state.Uhm source? I'm guessing you're talking about the US - that IS true in the UK, and yeah that's a problem.

Therapists are now legally "Mandatory reporters". So if a fifteen year old in custody admits to having sex with another fifteen year old that therapist is obligated to report it to the authorities so that they can wrangle more children and parents into the system of punishment and therapy. There's money to be made in treatment so there's real incentive to expand the law. The business of therapy is just as corrupt and oppressive as the private prison system in fact the two operate in tandem. The child predator task force and the child pornography agencies of the state are constantly trying to validate their expansion and their budgets by ruthlessly prosecuting as many cases as possible, the more the law is expanded the more cases they can prosecute the more they can expand their budget and influence. Why does this need explaining how it leads to endless prosecution of the innocent. Teens trapped in this system experience extremely high rates of suicide. You can't equate therapists to cops. Yeah therapists are required to report abuse, that doesn't make therapy like "prison". Therapy is a business in Capitalism like any other, you won't find any argument there. That doesn't make the concern of therapists for their patients any less legitimate, or that they should just ignore it when a child might be getting harmed.

People on sex offender registries are often not allowed to live around their own children. At least 13 states require sex offender registration for public urination, Flashing your breasts can get you arrested for indecent exposure in California and put on a sex offender registry. Show your Tits Loose your kids: How much more expansion do you want? Again, what does that have to do with anything? Nobody on this forum justifies that.

A child is 22 times more likely to be molested in a household making less than 30,000. What do you think the real solution is. Apparently you think it's hyperbolic screaming for the execution of pedophiles?This is an interesting point - perhaps the answer on a systemic level is more social and economic.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 08:29

Eh, I gotta argue against that, to be honest. As a former member of the BA (a member who has been banned from this site twice, to add context) I'm more than willing to admit the BA makes mistakes; in fact I'd even go as far to say, that members who I consider good posters, in the past, have been banned for quite alot less than what was said by current member(s) of the BA. Having said that, there is no formal conspiracy, or people in the BA who purposely start topics as bait, to out those who don't 'toe party line.' I've advocated against monolithic age of consent laws in the past. Not only by referencing the fact that I lost my virginity at 15, with another 15 year old, (which would make me a felon, in more than a couple of, U.S. states) but by also stating the example of my mother being 16 when she gave birth and my father being 20. Yet I've never been banned for expressing said opinions. I think form over content, can at times be important for message boards and I certainly think your conviction that threads of these types, are used to 'purge political opposition' is quite misguided (as if the admins/ba were monolithic in regards to politics).
There doesn't need to be a formal conspiracy to use these threads as an occasional opportunity to ban a ICL sympathizer, it could just be a matter of convenience. Posting any articles from the Workers Vanguard should be allowed no matter whose feelings it hurts. You cant bait a Spart saying they are rape apologist for defending Nambla and automatically ban them if they post an article explaining their stance, trash that thread and tell me thats a fair way of dealing with age of consent laws on supposedly revolutionary message boards. It doesn't have to be a conscious conspiracy to be condoned or ignored by the rest of the mods.
I'm also not some weirdo loner on this topic, just google "banned on revleft" and read through the endless postings on other forums. They can't all be trolls.

Art Vandelay

3rd December 2013, 08:40

There doesn't need to be a formal conspiracy to use these threads as an occasional opportunity to ban a ICL sympathizer, it could just be a matter of convenience.

Fair enough, I guess that is a fair proposition, although that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Posting any articles from the Workers Vanguard should be allowed no matter whose feelings it hurts.

It is allowed, I actually just recently quoted the 'workers vanguard' in a post I made on the Makhnovista.

You cant bait a Spart saying they are rape apologist for defending Nambla

The only person I've seen equivocate spart membership, with NAMBLA support, is the 'Trotskyist' Geiseric and you better believe I've called him out on it every chance I've had.

and automatically ban them if they post an article explaining their stance, trash that thread and tell me thats a fair way of dealing with age of consent laws on supposedly revolutionary message boards. It doesn't have to be a conscious conspiracy to be condoned or ignored by the rest of the mods.

All I can say, is that from experience (being on both sides of the ban hammer), is that the people who make up the BA on revleft, are well intentioned individuals (genuinely concerned with the quality of this board), even if I don't agree with their decisions. That doesn't make me any more supportive of the bans, of certain members.

I'm also not some weirdo loner on this topic, just google "banned on revleft" and read through the endless postings on other forums. They can't all be trolls.

I never claimed you were, in fact I've already mentioned the fact that I've been banned twice from this site, so no I don't consider former banned members 'weirdo loners' and I'm also aware, on a first hand basis, of the discussions which have been had, on certain splinter forums.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 08:43

You can't equate therapists to cops. Yeah therapists are required to report abuse, that doesn't make therapy like "prison". Therapy is a business in Capitalism like any other, you won't find any argument there. That doesn't make the concern of therapists for their patients any less legitimate, or that they should just ignore it when a child might be getting harmed.
.
I'm saying the financial incentive to expand sex laws is very real. Not all therapists are part of economy generated around these institutions but that there is a very real financial incentive. It is in the interests of the "for profit" private-state funded child abuse agencies. I am not arguing that all Therapists are part of state power the way cops are but that many of the institutions dealing with children in molestation cases are working in tandem with the interests of the private prison capitalists. The business is the incentive for the expansion not the protection of children.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 08:54

The only person I've seen equivocate spart membership, with NAMBLA support, is the 'Trotskyist' Geiseric and you better believe I've called him out on it every chance I've had.

Defending and support are 2 different things why doesnt anyone understand that. Saying that Nambla should not have it's computers seized by the state and it's membership be made public is not supporting the abuse of children.
The ICL defends Nambla they don't send them money.
They also defend R Kelly and Probably Michael Jackson. Geiseric was banned for posting a WV article explaining the stance. Dabrowski was also banned for defending Geiseric and apparently Vincent West had himself voluntarily banned afterwards according to some mod in some thread that has been trashed.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

3rd December 2013, 09:10

BTW you're confusing Geiseric with someone else - he is a vocally opposed to the Spart stance on age of consent issues.

I'm saying the financial incentive to expand sex laws is very real. Not all therapists are part of economy generated around these institutions but that there is a very real financial incentive. It is in the interests of the "for profit" private-state funded child abuse agencies. I am not arguing that all Therapists are part of state power the way cops are but that many of the institutions dealing with children in molestation cases are working in tandem with the interests of the private prison capitalists. The business is the incentive for the expansion not the protection of children.

OK this is reasonable. While I don't disagree with therapists reporting abuse, I do think that the way the privatized prison system has led to harsher punishments for a host of crimes and more methods of making people "Accountable" is a legit problem.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 09:19

BTW you're confusing Geiseric with someone else - he is a vocally opposed to the Spart stance on age of consent issues.

OK this is reasonable. While I don't disagree with therapists reporting abuse, I do think that the way the privatized prison system has led to harsher punishments for a host of crimes and more methods of making people "Accountable" is a legit problem.

Your right it was a user named Fred

It's also that therapists are mandatory reporters of any thing criminal or harmful. They have to by law report any admissions of guilt in a crime by their "patience" to the authorities. Is that what you agree with? if a 15 year old admits to having consensual sex with another 15 year old in therapy you agree the therapist should have to report that to the authorities.

Sasha

3rd December 2013, 11:09

We have always been very open why the advocating of lowering the age of consent is not allowed on this board, its for the same reason that you are not allowed to post drug or bomb making instructions, IT'S ILLEGAL and we value the existence of this board and the freedom of the BA team over the occasional discussion on this subject. If we get taken down we prefer it to be about being commies not an construction of us being childsex advocates.

Also a major problem is the make up of the board membership, any time we had an age of consent thread its dominated within seconds by horny teenage boys who have a natural urge to fuck slightly younger teenage girls and through their raging hormones can't reasonably argue for universal Romeo and Juliet laws but end up defending and siding with the nambla one issue "leftists" who do want abuse pre-pubescent children who also tend to be atracted to these threads as flys to honey.

So while you have argued (besides the paranoia) reasonably well the rules stand, no advocating the lowering of the age of consent, knock it off, take it back on topic or I will be forced to trash all the off topic posts.

Glitchcraft

3rd December 2013, 18:41

Im not saying your wrong but can you show me where it says advocating for the abolition of sex laws is illegal? Or the same as posting bomb making instructions.

And my discussion about the sex abuse industry does pertain directly to the punishment vs treatment dialogue in this thread.

And calling the ICL "nambla one issue "leftists" who do want abuse pre-pubescent children" is exactly what I am talking about. How can you accuse someone of being a child molester and immediately ban them for posting an article explaining the stance? Your actually doing exactly what I am describing. Oh and your a mod ... hmmmm.

I advocate that revleft should allow for any Workers Vanguard article to be posted. Unless of course you can show me the law pertaining to my above comments. If that is indeed the case I will retract my position and no longer bring it up.

Sasha

3rd December 2013, 18:55

Not everyone lives in the US, for example I am under dutch law, for me allowing bomb manuals to be posted is illegal, for the boardowner, who is German its illegal to host Nazi imagery, esp for the British mods stuff about age of consent is dangerous.
But yeah, fuck those who actually are the ones running this platform for you..

RedMoslem

4th December 2013, 17:13

xxxxxx666666

8th December 2013, 01:23

To me pedophilia is the sickest mental disorder this world has seen,and pedophiles who actually abused a child should be executed,while the ones who didn't abuse anyone should go to a mental hospital every other day.

Well, I hope in the future... *some things* will come up to make going to
"a mental hospital every other day" unnecessary, for pedophilies and others as well.

I disagree that pedophilia is the sickest mental disorder, but then again, matter of opinion. (I think that people who likes hurting and cheating and otherwise harming others, as a group, are the sickest mental disorder, but that's just me.)

By the way what do you think of child abusers who aren't pedophiles?

Remus Bleys

8th December 2013, 02:46

Star Linn, I want to know how mass execution of pedophiles is remotely effective.

xxxxxx666666

8th December 2013, 03:13

Star Linn, I want to know how mass execution of pedophiles is remotely effective.

The same way mass execution of all persons who are attracted to females would be effective in stopping rape and abuse of females, or killing all who are attracted to males would stop the abuse of males: So, kill all heterosexual males and lesbian females to stop the abuse of females!! (Or kill all homosexual males and heterosexual females to stop the abuse of males!!!) Or kill <whatever classification of persons who are attracted (sexually or otherwise) to another classification of persons> to prevent <another classification of persons> from begin abused!!!!!
:laugh:(this my way of making a joke by the way, don't take this seriously):laugh:

Ok, apologies to Star Linn if this is not the answer Star Linn would've provided.

Seriously though, maybe we need to look past pedophiles, and other "harmful groups" of people, and actually go after the people who actually harm children (and others for that matter) (which may include pedophiles, but also those who just like to hurt others and think they could get away with it) and those who neglect children if it is their responsibility and deal with them as necessary, be it therapy, isolation from the "at risk" population, imprisonment, re-education, etc. whatever may be effective.

tallguy

8th December 2013, 12:29

Paedophilia, in men at least (which is where most of it can be found) is the result of a combination of typical male sexual tendencies compromised by psychological inadequacy.

Males carry sperm as opposed to eggs. This means that the cost of copulation, for a male, is merely the few calories it took to make the sperm. Whereas, for females, the cost of copulation is the several months it takes to carry the foetus to term, plus the several years it takes to get the child to the point where they can fend for themselves in the world. Consequently, females tend to be a lot more picky in terms of who they choose to copulate with. Men, on the other hand, really do have a tendency to think with their dicks. All of the above may be mitigated significantly with cultural conditioning and/or cultural sanctions of behaviour that falls outside of agreed norms. Nevertheless, the basic differences of expressed sexual tendencies between men and women are still pretty evident in even the most enlightened cultures.

All of the above means that if a male, for whatever reason is emotionally immature and/or otherwise psychologically deficient in some way, he may experience difficulty in terms of a healthy and appropriate sexual relationship with other adults. This is not to say, he can't form them or even maintain them, but rather that such relationships will not service his psychological weakness. It is this type of man, who is most vulnerable to developing paedophillic tendencies, I would say.

So, take a man and start from the position of him having inherently low discrimination in terms of the object of his sexual attention, compromise his cultural conditioning, compromise his psychological stability/self esteem and, in doing all of the above, compromise his capacity to form satisfying and appropriate sexual relationships with other adults and you have got all of the necessary ingredients for creating someone who may find children sexually attractive. It's by no means guaranteed. Indeed, it may well be the case that most men who are all of the above will still not go on to develop paedophillic tendencies and/or would not act on them even if they do. However, of those men who may be described as paedophiles, I would wager a significant portion of them would fall into the above profile.

In short, such a man will be at risk of finding children sexually attractive because, being small and vulnerable, they will make him feel big and strong. Or, even shorter, paedophilia is about power and sex getting dangerously mixed up with each other.

Oenomaus

10th December 2013, 10:35

Rather predictably, threads of this sort degenerate into petit-bourgeois r-r-revolutionaries calling for Naziesque measures (this, by the way, is not an idle insult: as far as I am aware, only the Hitler government and its semi-successor the Bonn regime criminalised "deviant" sexual desire; not even modern theocratic regimes, amply supported by the liberals on this forum, do that) against "the degenerates". In case it needs to be spelled out: communisti non gendarmi. Someone's thoughts, preferences and fantasies are not grounds for any sort of coercive action, let alone execution (!). We do not want to start a revolution so that we might give oversight of our thought processes to some benevolent moralistic "our Committee" in the manner of Nechayev, and those who do want that are invited to join one of the many liberal cults masquerading as "socialists". I understand chairman Bob still hates women's libbers, hippies and faggots, even after smarter scum like Wholforth have learned to keep mum about that; probably he hates the paedos too. Or just pack up and go to one of those places many "socialists" like to gush over - some "Third World" theocracy. There you will find sexual repression aplenty.

Which is not to say that violence against children, including sexual violence, is inconsequential or unimportant. Children too are a specially oppressed group, gripped in the vices of the productivist ideology of capitalism and the oppressive structure of the traditional family that capitalism rests on. But "comrades", if you really do want to protect children, aim to smash the traditional family rather than reinforce it. If you do - but many if not most of you, "comrades", are simply populists who parrot the alleged attitudes of the backward sections of the working class; many of you are probably also peeved that faggot- and lezzie-baiting is no longer fashionable.

The insinuations against the ICL (and the LFI, IBT, and similar groups) in this thread are as amusing as they are misguided. If you were smarter, "comrades", you would keep quiet about that - the Spartacists stood for sexual liberation when your groups were foaming at the mouth at the very thought of workers being anything but Macho Straight Men. In fact you still block with all manner of reactionaries who oppose sexual liberation - old habits must die hard! 9mm, if you ever meet him, ask Petey Taafe about his friends in Ukraine and Russia. And yet you slander the Spartacists as molesters because they do not bow down to the magical limit of 18 years set by the bourgeois state in its infinite benevolence.

Comrade Glitchcraft, as I recall it, the members, and particularly the administration, did not defend K. Hunt. That case was the real acid test, separating revolutionaries from populist windbags. Yet most of the R-R-RevLeft membership, predictably, failed that test, including people who get off on how queer and anti-homophobic they are. Here was a clear example of the state using "age of consent" laws to ruin the lives of gay people - and most of you refused to say anything against that, retreating into cliches worthy of the dad character from a fifties' sitcom. Disgusting. Do us all a favour, and take up gardening or singing. Drop the pretense of being "socialist", or learn what it means to be "a tribune of the oppressed, able to present a single picture of police repression". It does not mean siding with police oppression because some magical age limit has been "violated".

Oh, and dear "comrades", what legal problems would you face if you permitted an open and materialist discussion of these issues? Every time you are challenged to cite the laws in question, you back down. One gets the impression that these laws exist only in your imagination - or in your cynical attempts to present yourself as the wronged party here.

Quite honestly, this Mullah-loving, Solidarnosc-supporting, cop-loving site is unworthy of the title it aspires to. "Home of the revolutionary left"! Ha! More like "home for the police-loving social-democracy".

Art Vandelay

10th December 2013, 15:30

And yet you slander the Spartacists as molesters because they do not bow down to the magical limit of 18 years set by the bourgeois state in its infinite benevolence.

I haven't slandered the sparts as anything, so don't go putting words in my mouth. In fact, I've consistently called out the one posters who accuses all ICL members of being defacto nambla supporters, so I really have no idea what you're talking about here. If you honestly think that anything I've stated in this thread comes close to 'slandering the sparts as molesters' than quote it, but you won't since its not a comment that I've made. I actually have alot of respect for the sparts, even if they've taken a bad turn for the worse in recent years.

Glitchcraft

19th December 2013, 03:19

Oh, and dear "comrades", what legal problems would you face if you permitted an open and materialist discussion of these issues? Every time you are challenged to cite the laws in question, you back down. One gets the impression that these laws exist only in your imagination - or in your cynical attempts to present yourself as the wronged party here.

.
I have PMed multiple mods asking for any citation of any laws and they have never responded. Just as they are not responding now. Just as they will likely never respond. They are too cowardly to admit they were wrong. Instead they will go on banning users who support or sympathize with the ICL.
I think Reactleft would be a better name for this forum. Since there are so many posters allowed to say any reactionary slander against the ICL while rational discourse is followed by bans and trashed threads.

Say what you want about the ICL they back their shit up with things called citations. That's this thing where you point to where you got the information. I can only assume that no mod or admin knows what a citation is since they all say these discussions are illegal but go deaf as soon as you ask for a citation.

You hear me Psycho? Wheres your citation? I pmed you asking? Hello? Is this thing on..... coward. You won't respond because you don't have one and you don't have the fortitude to say that were wrong.

It is absolutely an act of cowardice to constantly purge your political opponents from the message boards. If we are talking about revolutionbary politics and you take it seriously then seriously address your political opponents instead of just banning them.

Sasha

19th December 2013, 14:05

Hey glitchcraft, you remember my first reply to you in this thread?

yeah no, we are trying to have an earnest and fact based discussion on a pressing matter, and the creeps like you come in and ruin it for everyone again and again...

so one clear warning, this thread is NOT about age of consent laws, this thread is NOT about ephobihilia, take it off topic towards that direction and yes, you will get the boot.

Thats why I'm not replying and the warning stands, 1 more offtopic post and you can become a martyr for your noble cause to legally fuck kids.

Flying Purple People Eater

19th December 2013, 15:32

Star Linn, I want to know how mass execution of pedophiles is remotely effective.

It's got nothing to do with effectiveness. What is effective are the search maneuvers employed in finding pedophiles and pedophile rings, coupled with education on the subject to both children and adults (which ironically, according to the people arguing in this thread for therapy for convicted pedophiles and subsequently their names cleared, apparently 'does not work'), both of which work towards prevention and prosecution. What I am defending is my biased opinion on what should happen to child predators once they are apprehended.

Call me a savage, I don't care. There are few things more savage to me than the sexual assault of a child by a dangerous predator who has deluded themselves into thinking that such a relationship could ever be consensual - or is using such a thing as a front, at any rate.

The Feral Underclass

19th December 2013, 15:43

Call me a savage, I don't care.

Why don't you? Why do you think being a savage is not something you should care about?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

19th December 2013, 15:57

It's got nothing to do with effectiveness. What is effective are the search maneuvers employed in finding pedophiles and pedophile rings, coupled with education on the subject to both children and adults (which ironically, according to the people arguing in this thread for therapy for convicted pedophiles and subsequently their names cleared, apparently 'does not work'), both of which work towards prevention and prosecution. What I am defending is my biased opinion on what should happen to child predators once they are apprehended.

Call me a savage, I don't care. There are few things more savage to me than the sexual assault of a child by a dangerous predator who has deluded themselves into thinking that such a relationship could ever be consensual - or is using such a thing as a front, at any rate.

But those search methods are reaction based, meaning that someone has to abuse a child first before the various authorities can track the abuse and punish the predator.

The people you have been arguing against are talking about programs to reach out to people who haven't committed abuses yet, with the intention of preventing them from happening in the first place. But you can't identify those people if they're too afraid to come forward and receive treatment, because the public is demanding their immediate execution.

I get that you want to protect children, but this course only ensures that further children will be abused. The only thing you'd gain from it would be personal satisfaction from the death of a pedophile, but that wouldn't undo their crime or prevent abuse from the rest that are still out there hiding in plain sight.

BlackFlag

26th December 2013, 23:23

Capitol punishment should be available for pedo's and child abusers in my opinion, obviously it relates to the circumstance at hand;i.e you wouldn't give the death sentence to a 22 year old who had consensual sex with a 17 year old in the USA.

Rorschach20

3rd January 2014, 14:19

Hello people,

Most of you are probably going to hate me, even call for an immediate ban, but when I saw this thread, I had to expressed myself.

I am a homesexual pedophile, 20 years old, attracted to boys age 2-14. I've done questionable things in my life I regret, but never anything that could be called child molestation. Last time I had an IQ test (done by a school psychologist, not one of those dumb online quizes), the result was 118. I've never been sexually molested, although I've been abused by a caregiver in an entirely legal way. I don't want to defend child sex or lowering of age of consent, although I should say that other and past cultures looked at this issue very differently.

Craig_J, I'm very sorry for what happened to you, but your step-grandfather did not attempt to abuse you just because he was a pedophile (and there is a possibility he was not a pedophile at all, but later on that). He attempted to abuse you because he had no consideration of the consequences that could result for you.

There are many "studies" on "pedophiles" who paint us all as mentally challanged freaks. Most of those studies were done on convicted child molesters in prison, disregarding even the fact that psychiatry doesn't consider many of these individuals to be pedophiles (defined as people who have a dominant sexual attraction to children). Smart pedophiles either are smart enough to know how sex can hurt children and don't practice it with them, or are sneaky enough to not get caught by the authorities. In my time in online pedophile community (I've been there since I was 16), I've encountered plenty of both types of people, I even personally met 2 people from the 1st category.

People who say pedophiles are "worse than murderers" absolutely disregard non-offending pedophiles and make out sexual harm to be somehow worse than starving kids to death in prison camps (I am looking at you Stalinists). The claim that "murderers are better than pedophiles, because pedophiles fuck up whole lives" is in my opinion incredibly insulting to actual victims of molestation who recovered from their abuse and lead normal, productive, often even happy lives. It paints every victim of molestation as "damaged goods", invariably fucked up for life regardless of if the molestation was fondling through clothing or brutal gang rape. It dehumanizes not just minor attracted people, but victims of actual child molesters as well. Supposedly, every 3rd to 10th child has been molested in some way, do you write them off as permanently damaged basketcases?

Most of the Darknet (Tor/Freenet) pedophile community is quite nasty and OK with molestation, but a lot of that is a direct result of the "we have nothing to lose, they hate us anyways regardless of whatever we do" mentallity. I've debated many people like that who wanted me to join their side, saying that the public will hate me regardless of if I actually did anything.

The child porn laws in the US frequently giving longer sentences to people caught with a harddrive with CP than to people who rape and murder children. To illustrate just how insane this is, the usual sentence for CP in my country is probation. Now, one argument for ilegality of CP possesion is that every time someone views a picture, the person in it is somehow being victimized again. This is debatable, but isn't it true of any pictures/videos of a controversial nature? I don't think the relatives of Iraqis who are hanged by US forces and then posted by some "patriotic" assholes as "ragheads getting wat dey deserve" on Youtube are happy about the video of death of their family members posted for millions of assholes to cheer on. It is legal to have videos of kids getting shot to death, torn to shreds by knives etc... but illegal to have a webcam video of a kid masturbating (which a lot of "child porn" is). Isn't that kind of illogical?

The other argument is that child porn is a "billion dollar industry". This is simply a blatant lie. The Darknet is full of CP, but the vast majority of it is free. Most of it is made either by depraved parents or kids themselves (in case of webcam videos). Most "professional CP" made tends to be restrained, softcore material (think child models). No pedophile in their right mind would buy CP, regardless of the price or of their morality, because all "paid CP sites" are honeytraps run by the police.

There was research done in the Czech Republic that most child molesters are not in fact preferential pedophiles. There are people who are into kids because of a sexually immature personality, but that is a separate diagnosis.

There is also a strong sexist and ageist undercurrent in the hysteria against pedophiles, and that is that they are all dirty, middle aged or elderly, chauvinist man. I am 20, most people in pedophile online forums I've been to are between 19-35, and I believe them, because I met 2, and talked on voicechat and webcam to many others. I've seen pedophiles as young as 15, and yes, they are pedophiles, what else would you call a 15 year old who is attracted to preschoolers? Pedowoman exist too, I've chatted to one yesterday evening, despite countless people screaming how they are all evil, evil man.

All of you who want Nazi death camps and executions for pedophiles to PROTECT THE CHILDREN don't understand that your child can turn out to be one. I've chatted with pedophiles who had wonderful childhoods, average childhoods or nightmarishly abusive ones. All of them were just as pedo, except that those who experienced strong abuse were more afraid of succumbing to their urge and their fantasies are often more violent.

Oenomaus says it the best. This thread shows how supposed "communists" are still shaped by the "common wisdom" of a capitalist society. I am not calling for the "sexual liberation" of children, I have countless interests and reasons to live, I can live with the fact I cannot have sex with children, I genuinely like them too much to hurt them that way.

Countless children starve to death every day, countless are shot, countless have their bodies and brains stunted by malnutrition, countless are beaten, pressed into armies, have to slave away in sweatshops etc. Somehow, the "average man", communists included, seem to be only concerned with child suffering when it involves "degenerate perverts". It is all because pedophiles are the only group left that can be demonized and hated without any social sanction. We are the last people that genocide can be openly proposed for, and society will cheer with a bloodthirsty shout. It is all about the "hey, I might be a wife/child beating douchebag, but at least I am not an evil pedo" psychology. People like to think that no matter how bad they are there will always be a group of people who are just "demons", boogeyman.

tallguy

3rd January 2014, 14:52

That was a long post. Firstly, I accept there is a moral difference between thought and action. The former is morally and legally neutral, the latter is not. I also aware that "peadophillia" has become the new "witch" and is being used by authorities, along with other aspects of human sexual behaviour, to keep everyone afraid. All of which has led to completely stupid situations where a 19 year old can be put on the child sexual offenders register cos they had sex with a 15 year old. None of that means that real paedophilia is anything other than deeply immoral and heinous, however. I recently had the extremely unpleasant experience of debating with a self confessed person with pedophillic tendencies on a forum called "Rational Skepticism". I was, at least, initially prepared to give him the time of day as long as it was clear he had not, nor had any intention of acting on his impulses.

However, he initially came on there and stated that although he had never acted on his impulses, he also was unwilling to regard those impulses as deviant. He,instead, tried to covertly imply that his was merely a morally neutral sexual preference and the problem was with the nasty society that made people like him hide away. He even went so far as to try and suggest that a child is capable of giving informed consent. He then went on, as you have done, to cite all of the terrible things that are done to children by way of comparison with peadophillia being the least of these. At which point, I completely fucking lost it with that poster and got myself banned from that forum because I took the mods on for allowing that person to continue to justify and validate the hurting of kids. Hurt that really can last a lifetime.

I bet you wouldn't say something like the following: "The rape of a 100 kids is bad, but the war in Afghanistan is worse", would you? Because if you did, people might just get the sneaking suspicion you were trying to minimise child rape. Well, that's what you have done when you bring up all that other shit you did. So, don't fucking do it. I accept you honesty in other regards and welcome it because it means we can have an honest debate. But, be warned, whenever your posts try and legitimise and morally minimise fucking kids, I will lose it with you man.

Instead, answer me the following question please:

Do you accept that paedophilic tendencies (the behavioural tendency to be sexually attracted to children) are not merely morally neutral sexual "preferences", but are a mental aberration and that is true irrespective of whether such impulses are acted on. The reason I ask you this question is this: If you can't answer yes, then it means the only thing stopping you from acting on your impulses is fear of the consequences, as opposed to an intrinsic understanding of why you shouldn't. And that would make you dangerous to kids.

If you can answer yes to the above question we can proceed from there. If you can't then I'm out of this thread and will be reporting you to the mods.

sosolo

3rd January 2014, 15:00

Wow. Pedophile apologism. Never really thought I'd see that. Interesting to see such honesty, but, wow.

I smell a ban. And a backlash. Both are well deserved.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Rorschach20

3rd January 2014, 15:14

Honestly, this is a hard question. I definitely would not defend the rape of 100 children. However I take issue with this statement
If you can't answer yes, then it means the only thing stopping you from acting on your impulses is fear of the consequences, as opposed to an intrinsic understanding of why you shouldn't. And that would make you dangerous to kids.

What is stopping me is fear of the consequences, but fear of the consequences for the children, not for myself. I like children, and I don't want to endanger their development by premature sexual activity.

However, I would say pedophilia is "morally neutral" in the same way any other condition is. Is arsenic or uranium evil? Is Escherichia coli evil?

It also depends on what do you mean by the word. If you call pedophilia only my sexual desires, then yes, they are quite warped and sick. However, I also genuinely feel affection towards children, and I felt that long before I became aware of my "dark side". Maybe you won't call those feelings a part of pedophilia, but others would. Many historical figures such as Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, are suspected to have been pedophiles. So I believe as long as a pedophile does not act on his sexual impulses he can use his attraction for good.

I hope this doesn't make you angry. I don't defend child sex or my sexual fantasies, but I'm not going to self-flaggelate myself either. Wallowing in self abasement and pity never helped anyone, in fact the most dangerous pedophiles I ever encountered online were those who sincerely believed that they will eventually rape a child because they are just warped pieces of shit like that, because mainstream society puts no role models for young pedophiles. They don't see Lewis Carrol, they see Dutroux.

So, no, and yes. Sadism, pedophilia etc... are not evil, the acts that could result from acting on them are.

But then, I have a different opinion from the guy you mention. Just because E. Coli or uranium are not evil does not mean you should give them to children's breakfast cereals. I guess you can classify pedophilia as a "potentionally dangerous" sexual preference.

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2014, 15:16

Rorschach20

3rd January 2014, 15:24

Sosolo, why don't you try to make an actual argument? I understand your anger, but again, what would you do in my situation? I am not trying to justify child molestation and rape. My description of the online pedophile community was a little too frank I admit, but that's the reality. I am not whitewashing, I explicitly said there are a lot of really bad people in it. However, justice should be based on crimes, not percieved "degeneracy" of the criminal.

You know what kind of a forum I found out first? The molester type. It is easier to find that on the internet than any kind of reasonable help. Drug addicts who become addicted because they took drugs out of their own free will are gived free help yet pedophiles are told to kill themselves. Are you so blinded by hate to not see why this is wrong?

A society who would try to raise pedophiles to be non-offending, psychologically healthy people would help to lower child abuse far more than any retarded "execution squad" fantasies.

You know who told me first how should I handle and control myself? Other pedophiles (the non offending type). The media just told me I am going to eventually rape and torture kids no matter what I do. If you enjoy sentencing people to death based on things they didn't choose (not talking about offenders here), then you are not fit to be human much less a communist.

Rorschach20

3rd January 2014, 15:28

TAT, I seek to accomplish a reasonable discussion. It is easy to talk shit when the other side is presumed to be unable to speak out.

Many people seem to view pedophiles as some kind of animals "outside society". They don't seem to get that we are people just like you. It is easy to propose executions and torture when you don't think that your son, or brother, or whoever can be one.

I would actually accept chemical castration, if it didn't have devastating side effects. Organ damage, depression, that kind of shit.

tallguy

3rd January 2014, 16:22

Honestly, this is a hard question. I definitely would not defend the rape of 100 children. However I take issue with this statement

What is stopping me is fear of the consequences, but fear of the consequences for the children, not for myself. I like children, and I don't want to endanger their development by premature sexual activity.

However, I would say pedophilia is "morally neutral" in the same way any other condition is. Is arsenic or uranium evil? Is Escherichia coli evil?

It also depends on what do you mean by the word. If you call pedophilia only my sexual desires, then yes, they are quite warped and sick. However, I also genuinely feel affection towards children, and I felt that long before I became aware of my "dark side". Maybe you won't call those feelings a part of pedophilia, but others would. Many historical figures such as Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, are suspected to have been pedophiles. So I believe as long as a pedophile does not act on his sexual impulses he can use his attraction for good.

I hope this doesn't make you angry. I don't defend child sex or my sexual fantasies, but I'm not going to self-flaggelate myself either. Wallowing in self abasement and pity never helped anyone, in fact the most dangerous pedophiles I ever encountered online were those who sincerely believed that they will eventually rape a child because they are just warped pieces of shit like that, because mainstream society puts no role models for young pedophiles. They don't see Lewis Carrol, they see Dutroux.

So, no, and yes. Sadism, pedophilia etc... are not evil, the acts that could result from acting on them are.

But then, I have a different opinion from the guy you mention. Just because E. Coli or uranium are not evil does not mean you should give them to children's breakfast cereals. I guess you can classify pedophilia as a "potentionally dangerous" sexual preference.Okay, I have some quibbles but will, on the face of it, take that as a fair enough answer for now. I have other questions and things to put to you, but they will have to wait. I'm busy now.

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2014, 16:39

TAT, I seek to accomplish a reasonable discussion. It is easy to talk shit when the other side is presumed to be unable to speak out.

You have already commented on the fact that people in this thread have had knee-jerk reactions; on the fact that most people call for your death etc. How is it then that you could expect a reasonable discussion?

I'm just confused by your intervention and slightly suspicious of your motives.

Rorschach20

3rd January 2014, 17:00

You have already commented on the fact that people in this thread have had knee-jerk reactions; on the fact that most people call for your death etc. How is it then that you could expect a reasonable discussion?

I'm just confused by your intervention and slightly suspicious of your motives.

I understand why you're suspicious but I'm not here to troll or defend child molesters. It is just that I am used to these responses and usually don't react, but it this case I had to, because people who proclaim themselves leftists and revolutionaries are supposed to take a rational approach to sensitive issues. I expect hate and stupidity, but people who claim they are opposed to the current burgeois society should not suddenly start defending death squads and extensions of state power ''because pedos".

I am just calling for consistency. Why do some perfectly reasonable people turn into supporters of mindless repression when a certain paraphilia is mentioned? It reeks of "We should judge everyone by his actions and fairly... but burn all pedos!".

Full Metal Bolshevik

3rd January 2014, 17:10

I actually thought than on a forum full of side eyed communists and anarchists people would be a little more open minded, but it does not seem to be the case. And anyone trying to be more understanding is automatically labeled as a rape apologist.

Right Star Linn?

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2014, 17:14

Open minded to what, exactly?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

3rd January 2014, 17:33

I don't know if I agree with the idea that people are repulsed by pedophiles because it's nice to have someone lower on the social chain than yourself. I think the people calling for their deaths are doing so as a result of legitimate horror, so much so that they are not thinking in a rational way way when they decide on murder being the solution. If the goal is to get the public to recognize a difference between those who harm children and those who do not, I don't think that is a productive angle to take, as you are essentially lumping yourself in with the actual predators.

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2014, 18:06

I understand why you're suspicious but I'm not here to troll or defend child molesters. It is just that I am used to these responses and usually don't react, but it this case I had to, because people who proclaim themselves leftists and revolutionaries are supposed to take a rational approach to sensitive issues. I expect hate and stupidity, but people who claim they are opposed to the current burgeois society should not suddenly start defending death squads and extensions of state power ''because pedos".

I am just calling for consistency. Why do some perfectly reasonable people turn into supporters of mindless repression when a certain paraphilia is mentioned? It reeks of "We should judge everyone by his actions and fairly... but burn all pedos!".

No, I'm not suspicious that you are a troll or that you're here to defend rape, I'm suspicious of the fact you must know full well the response you'd receive, so it seems unusual that you would brave that hostility for very little reward.

Despite the ridiculous threads like Pour Your Heart Out, RevLeft is not really a space for catharsis. I would do yourself a favour and not even try. You're bound to be disappointed.

I am just calling for consistency. Why do some perfectly reasonable people turn into supporters of mindless repression when a certain paraphilia is mentioned? It reeks of "We should judge everyone by his actions and fairly... but burn all pedos!".

Children have become a sacred cow in western civilisation. It is the epoch in which we all live. But let's not forget, even those civilisations in which you Romanticise in thinking there are kindred spirits to be found, didn't approve of sexual contact with pre-pubescent children. There is no civilisation on Earth, past or present, that has embraced paedophilia as a social norm.

Raquin

3rd January 2014, 18:11

My favorite part of this thread is the one where RevLeft's new Resident Child Rapist™ implies that those that refuse to be pedophile cheerleaders either beat their children or their spouses.

New low? Nah, who am I kidding?

khad

3rd January 2014, 18:13

There is a no platform policy on pedophilia and age of consent discussion. Thread closed. User banned.

Sasha

3rd January 2014, 19:53

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2014, 19:55

Why were my posts deleted specifically?

Edit: Thanks for restoring them, Psycho.

Art Vandelay

3rd January 2014, 20:26

bullshit khad, everypost you deleted there was well argued and nothing in my opinion was apolligizing of rape or other abuse.
at least discuss this with your fellow BA member first.
i restored the full discussion and i reopen the tread, the poster might be restricted or banned following BA discussion.

Infract/warn him for his prejudice language. I don't know, maybe he spewed more of it and those posts were deleted, but as long as were deleting posts why leave one with a derogatory use of the word 'retarded'? Anyways, this thread is uncomfortable and don't think I'll be keeping an eye on it to see which way it goes, its going no where good.

Geiseric

4th January 2014, 00:02

Inb4 FBI come through and at long last shut this site down.

The Feral Underclass

4th January 2014, 00:03

Inb4 FBI come through and at long last shut this site down.

Geiseric showing his true colours and supporting state repression against parts of the revolutionary left.

Sasha

4th January 2014, 00:13

nah, the ACLU would have a field day on that, as long as we keep fundi muslims out we should be good. though since even communists are still higher (lower?) on the shitlist of the feds than pedophiles that might not make much of a difference.

but in all seriousness, while I applaud Rorschach20 for his honesty and his apparent successful struggle to remain a non-abuser i do need to warn you that because of legal possibilities its not allowed to point any further to potential sources of child pornography (and i do think you are self-deluding about the harmful origins of it), sadly its not even allowed to advocate the free or controlled distribution of virtual child-porn (a measure that i myself, based on available scientific research would support).
so yeah, a friendly verbal warning.

also a stern verbal warning to other users, while i can see Rorschach (since he apparently doesnt self identify as an revolutionary leftist) getting restricted eventually (i think he will disappear on his own accord as soon as this thread ran its course though) the rules of no flaming apply also around this user. discuss respectfully or stay out of it, deathwishes and insults are NOT allowed.

Geiseric

4th January 2014, 00:29

Geiseric showing his true colours and supporting state repression against parts of the revolutionary left.

I didn't say "I support xxx" I said if you don't ban people asking to doing illegal things on the felony level you could run into legal trouble.

The Feral Underclass

4th January 2014, 00:51

I didn't say "I support xxx" I said if you don't ban people asking to doing illegal things on the felony level you could run into legal trouble.

What you said was: "Inb4 FBI come through and at long last shut this site down."

Any one who speaks and understands basic English can infer exactly what is meant by that statement. What do you think "at long last" means if it doesn't mean an appreciation for the specific actions of something? In this case the FBI (i.e. the state) coming and shutting down (i.e. repress) this site (i.e. part of the revolutionary left).

Ann Egg

4th January 2014, 21:17

People who say pedophiles are "worse than murderers" absolutely disregard non-offending pedophiles and make out sexual harm to be somehow worse than starving kids to death in prison camps (I am looking at you Stalinists). The claim that "murderers are better than pedophiles, because pedophiles fuck up whole lives" is in my opinion incredibly insulting to actual victims of molestation who recovered from their abuse and lead normal, productive, often even happy lives. It paints every victim of molestation as "damaged goods", invariably fucked up for life regardless of if the molestation was fondling through clothing or brutal gang rape. It dehumanizes not just minor attracted people, but victims of actual child molesters as well. Supposedly, every 3rd to 10th child has been molested in some way, do you write them off as permanently damaged basketcases.

Yep, totally. When you're dead, you're dead. I know many numerous rape victims who've led healthy lives and have completely gotten over that trauma. You wouldn't know that they were raped

This opprobrium given rapists (compared to murderers and the like) is based on such fallacious logic that I would hope that more leftists would come to a rational perspective regarding the issues facing us today.

Countless children starve to death every day, countless are shot, countless have their bodies and brains stunted by malnutrition, countless are beaten, pressed into armies, have to slave away in sweatshops etc. Somehow, the "average man", communists included, seem to be only concerned with child suffering when it involves "degenerate perverts". It is all because pedophiles are the only group left that can be demonized and hated without any social sanction. We are the last people that genocide can be openly proposed for, and society will cheer with a bloodthirsty shout. It is all about the "hey, I might be a wife/child beating douchebag, but at least I am not an evil pedo" psychology. People like to think that no matter how bad they are there will always be a group of people who are just "demons", boogeyman.
Indeed. While rape is a terrible thing, you are right that people need to have a sense of scale about these kinds of things. You often hear certain leftists screaming "kill all men" or something or another, as if every man is a rapist and that deserves the worst punishment imaginable.

Today women are told to view every man they've met as a potential rapist, and the image of women that is projected by the state is that of a helpless victims in need of state protection; these are very degrading views of both men and women.

Relating to this I have a personal anecdote: in my regular bar there is a condom vending machine underneath a poster from the home office that tells me to "make sure" to "get a yes before having sex." In other words, "don't accidentally rape anyone tonight!" Men are basically being told that they have a rapist inside that is just begging to be let out. This is total paranoia, and if the nanny state has its way, condoms in the future will be sold with legal contracts to be signed by both parties before sex can legally happen. Well, I say I don't need a racist imperialist murderous cop state guilting me into thinking I'm a rapist. The State should be the last entity on earth telling me about morality.

Sasha

4th January 2014, 21:41

Wow, now here we are getting close to rape appollogism... Gross

helot

4th January 2014, 21:50

Indeed. While rape is a terrible thing, you are right that people need to have a sense of scale about these kinds of things. You often hear certain leftists screaming "kill all men" or something or another, as if every man is a rapist and that deserves the worst punishment imaginable.

hyperbole, mate. It's like when people go on about "eat the rich" we're not condoning cannibalism.

Btw, this whole "rape isn't as bad as X" is disturbing as fuck! How about also looking at the damn social context. We're in a society that justifies rape

Radical Rambler

9th January 2014, 19:34

People don't chose what they're attracted to sexually any more than they chose what tastes good.

This idea, which dovetails with the dominant homosexual narrative about being born with homosexuality, is what causes the "Left" to bend over backwards defending pedophiles. This idea is, of course, false.

The modern homosexual identity is a social-construction. Homosexuals are not a separate species. They are not biologically separated from the rest of the population, contrary to the dominant homosexual narrative about the nature of the homosexual identity.

Pedophiles are, and will continue, abusing this false idea of the nature of the homosexual identity in order to normalize their sadistic child-rape fantasies. They want to turn LGBTQ into LGBT-P, and certain members of that community are more than willing to accommodate them.

Slavic

9th January 2014, 20:29

This idea, which dovetails with the dominant homosexual narrative about being born with homosexuality, is what causes the "Left" to bend over backwards defending pedophiles. This idea is, of course, false.

The modern homosexual identity is a social-construction. Homosexuals are not a separate species. They are not biologically separated from the rest of the population, contrary to the dominant homosexual narrative about the nature of the homosexual identity.

Wow, so lets just ignore the fact that physical attraction is a biological response and pretend that we can just mentally chose who we are attracted to. If that is the case then all those "Gay Away" clinics must be quite successful.

Physical attraction is biologically based. Being born with a physical attraction to pre-pubesent children is not wrong. Acting upon this attraction is wrong because a child can and will never be able to give consent.

Similarly I am attracted to women, there is nothing wrong with being born with this attraction. If I have sex with a women with out consent then the action is wrong, but the desire is not.

Radical Rambler

10th January 2014, 00:47

Physical attraction is biologically based. Being born with a physical attraction to pre-pubesent children is not wrong.

This is a lie. In the case of this lie being used by homosexual men (lesbians predominately know this idea is false, as their chosen sexual identity is based on a conscious rejection of Patriarchy) to get mainstream acceptance of themselves, it was mostly a harmless lie. Today, it serves nothing but a reactionary purpose, and is even used by child-rapists to justify their sadistic anti-social fantasies.

The homosexual thinker Michael Foucault long ago showed the origins of the dominant homosexual narrative in his brilliant The History of Sexuality. I suggest people read the Palestinian Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs to see how this concept of the homosexual identity is used today in a reactionary way by Western imperialism.

Rottenfruit

10th January 2014, 00:53

Pedophile apologism is wrong wrong and fucking wrong :mad: we should not associate with them or tolerate them here :thumbdown:

also being gay has nothing to do with being a pedo , dont lump these things together

Lily Briscoe

10th January 2014, 02:03

(lesbians predominately know this idea is false, as their chosen sexual identity is based on a conscious rejection of Patriarchy)

Uh... I actually agree that the idea of hardwired orientation is wrong, but the idea that most lesbians are lesbians due to their political convictions is really beyond ridiculous.

Slavic

10th January 2014, 02:40

This is a lie. In the case of this lie being used by homosexual men (lesbians predominately know this idea is false, as their chosen sexual identity is based on a conscious rejection of Patriarchy) to get mainstream acceptance of themselves, it was mostly a harmless lie. Today, it serves nothing but a reactionary purpose, and is even used by child-rapists to justify their sadistic anti-social fantasies.

The homosexual thinker Michael Foucault long ago showed the origins of the dominant homosexual narrative in his brilliant The History of Sexuality. I suggest people read the Palestinian Joseph Massad's Desiring Arabs to see how this concept of the homosexual identity is used today in a reactionary way by Western imperialism.

First of all I would like to thank you for shocking me twice in one day. I never knew that lesbians were only in it to "stick it to the man".

Secondly, I do not think that a philosopher's musings on the origins of homosexuality really have any merit whatsoever in the face of scientific fact. Linked here is a informative site that compiles results from numerous studies to show the biological and genetic conditions that appear to be commonplace amongst those born as homosexuals.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1995-biological-aspects.html

Yuppie Grinder

10th January 2014, 03:17

A Psychological Symphony

10th January 2014, 04:10

If anyone's seriously arguing that having free access to child porn would be a solution I'm pretty mad tbh. Producing that is itself a horrible crime against children, it definently constitutes abuse.

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm pretty sure they were referring to an animated substitute. I don't think anybody on here would actually want to put children into that.

Geiseric

10th January 2014, 07:02

While I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm pretty sure they were referring to an animated substitute. I don't think anybody on here would actually want to put children into that.

Lol you're new to revleft I see.

anybody who has been persecuted for being gay would likely kick your ass for comparing them with pedophiles, which stems culturally from bourgeois hegemonic social relations. Homosexuality is something you're born with, the desire to dominate another younger human sexually however usually is the result of childhood abuse of some sort, which may not even be sexual. It is, regardless, a choice to be a pedophile. If I knew one of my comrades was a pedophile and abused another member of the organization, I would kick their ass out the door and make sure they never want to see me again. The same would go for any of you people.

Tenka

10th January 2014, 07:24

The willful conflation of paedophilia and actual child-rapism is populist shit so damaging to any discussion of these things that it apparently leads to people not even reading posts.

The Feral Underclass

10th January 2014, 09:08

It is, regardless, a choice to be a pedophile.

No it isn't. It is a mental disorder characterised by developmental abnormalities. Your wilful ignorance on this subject is bordering on the absurd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Flying Purple People Eater

10th January 2014, 09:31

I'm not surprised so many people here are played the 'misunderstood pedophile' line, considering this websites' ridiculously dodgy history with pedophilia, along with more than a dozen very disturbing rumors.

I am a homosexual pedophile.

Thanks, people who liked this rapist with a guilty conscience's post. I finally get to use the block user function.

No it isn't. It is a mental disorder characterised by developmental abnormalities. Your wilful ignorance on this subject is bordering on the absurd.

Does it matter if it's a choice or not? I couldn't give a rat's arse if someone was naturally attracted sexually to children. Acts of pedophilia are acts of rape, and detainment of pedophiles is pre-emptive. Whether a pedophile thinks their thoughts or actions are justifiable by the claim that what they have is an inbuilt response or not, and whether this is true or not, is completely fucking irrelevant.

If a pedophile truly 'cares about the children' and 'doesn't wish to harm them for fear of losing control', then they should fucking neuter themselves.

I would also like to see these studies in which pedophilia is an ingrained sexual attraction like homosexuality.

The Feral Underclass

10th January 2014, 09:37

Thanks, people who liked this rapist with a guilty conscience's post. I finally get to use the block user function.

You actually have to rape someone in order to be a rapist. Being a paedophile doesn't make you a rapist.

The Feral Underclass

10th January 2014, 10:00

The modern homosexual identity is a social-construction.

So your claim is that being gay is the consequence of a capitalist society?

Homosexuals are not a separate species. They are not biologically separated from the rest of the population, contrary to the dominant homosexual narrative about the nature of the homosexual identity

This argument doesn't logically follow. I don't see how being biologically pre-disposed to a sexual attraction of your own gender constitutes a "separate species," unless you are starting from the basis that heterosexuality is the default natural position and being biologically homosexual would somehow be an abnormality.

In the case of this lie being used by homosexual men...to get mainstream acceptance of themselves, it was mostly a harmless lie. Today, it serves nothing but a reactionary purpose, and is even used by child-rapists to justify their sadistic anti-social fantasies.

The view that being gay is something that is chosen or something that society constructs is as fallacious as the notion that straight people choose to be straight.

The problem here, of course, is that you don't accept the position that straight people choose their sexuality because you are ultimately of the opinion that being straight is a normal, natural occurrence and that if homosexuality were biological it would therefore be abnormal or unnatural, which, since you are clearly trying to mould your homophobic views into a more tolerant narrative, means you have to conclude that it is a choice or a "social construction" that you probably claim you have no issue with, therefore presenting yourself as accepting (as if we require your acceptance in the first place).

Aside from the obvious absurd aspects of believing someone would choose to live a life that is legislated against, discriminated against; is the leading contributor to bullying, teenage suicides, mental health problems and general stigmatisation, as well as the boundless empirical evidence, in the shape of human experience, including myself, whom can confirm that being gay wasn't a choice, all you are doing with your confused ideas is reinforcing heterosexist domination and the heteronormative world view that gives legitimisation to that domination.

Your views contribute to our oppression, whether you are intending them to or not. My feeling is that your intentions here are to contribute to that oppression, because I sense nothing but contempt in your posts. If it is not contempt, then it is an almost pathological insensitivity. Either way, your posts are not welcome here.

(lesbians predominately know this idea is false, as their chosen sexual identity is based on a conscious rejection of Patriarchy)

All this statement does is reveal your detachment from the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ people.

The homosexual thinker Michael Foucault long ago showed the origins of the dominant homosexual narrative in his brilliant The History of Sexuality

I am not confident that you have interpreted Foucault's views correctly.

The Feral Underclass

10th January 2014, 10:11

Does it matter if it's a choice or not?

Well of course it does.

I couldn't give a rat's arse if someone was naturally attracted sexually to children.

Sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children isn't natural, that's why it's a mental disorder.

Acts of pedophilia are acts of rape

An act of paedophilia is not the same as being a paedophile.

and detainment of pedophiles is pre-emptive.

So your claim is that any one who is a paedophile is going to end up raping a child?

Whether a pedophile thinks their thoughts or actions are justifiable by the claim that what they have is an inbuilt response or not, and whether this is true or not, is completely fucking irrelevant.

That paragraph makes no sense to me.

If a pedophile truly 'cares about the children' and 'doesn't wish to harm them for fear of losing control', then they should fucking neuter themselves.

With psychological treatment paedophilia can be treated, but that would require society to be more sympathetic to it as a condition, so that people can feel comfortable to seek treatment.

If society continues to rage in similar theatrical ways to you, then we are not really progressing towards a solution. I'm sure this knee-jerk reaction makes you feel better and makes sure everyone knows you're a "good guy", but it isn't really helpful or productive in finding serious solutions to this problem.

I would also like to see these studies in which pedophilia is an ingrained sexual attraction like homosexuality.

Why?