Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, May 26, 2013.
Evidence for this with regard to the FB site? Because the only description of the website offered so far was that it advocated for (bold added) “Acceptance of men with sexual desires towards children who have not had any sexual contact with them.”
Seems like a huge leap to go from that description to “operating in a capacity of glorification”.
The evidence isn’t as strong as you might think. For example:
“The data support the notion of a victim-to-victimiser cycle in a minority of male perpetrators but not among the female victims studied. Sexual abuse by a female in childhood may be a risk factor for a cycle of abuse in males.”
People who were raped may be less like to become rapists, but there is quite a lot of research exploring the role of abuse being a contributory factor to a person going on to commit a rape. The problem is that the abused becoming abuser will have a natural bias towards child abuse, simply because children are the most vulnerable and easy to abuse.
And, to be honest, would you really be surprised that murder victims don’t go on to become murderers (the bold part of your comment)? Think about it.
This was your response to my comment “No one has presented any evidence that the facebook page in the OP ever advocated rape or any actions whatsoever towards children....”
Can I take it that you do not in fact have such evidence? Easier to just continue with the strawman attacks I suppose.
A pithy comment, but it doesn’t address the point that I made. But I suspect you already knew that.
Still pushing that same strawman I see….
Do you have any evidence that paedophilia is NOT due to hormonal drive? Where the fuck do you think sexual attraction comes from??? And are seriously going to argue that hormonal drive does not play a role in rape???
And, seriously, the strawman is getting real tired real fast. Child attraction is to raping children as heterosexual attraction is to raping people. Do you understand how heterosexual attraction doesn’t automatically lead to rape? Can you understand why child attraction doesn’t automatically lead to raping children?
This was in response to my statement that “It is worth emphasising that out of all the people who have an attraction to children, only a very small minority would ever be at risk of acting on such.”
I’m more than happy to try supporting my position (something not being reciprocated by yourself, but whatever).
Firstly the prevalence of paedophilia. There are research difficulties here, but when studies are done the results may surprise you:
The results of those who ‘Admitted some attraction to little children’ were 22% in males and 3% in females. Those who ‘Admitted masturbation to child sex fantasy in last year’ was 4% in males. Given the social stigma attached to such an admission, even if done so under condition of anonymity, these results may be even higher.
It is hard to get figures for child molesters, so you will have to forgive the following back-of-the-envelope calculation. In the UK the figures for convictions on child sexual offences are as follows:
While these are almost certainly less than the total number, they are massively below the 22% and 4% figures the previous research provided. The bottom line is that there are a massive number of people with paedophilic tendencies not acting on those tendencies.
Here is another little gem form the research that will blow your mind. Not all child molesters are paedophiles:
Please spend some time in the NoRape forum, the discussion about hormones:rape is there.
You could just cite the relevant research paper(s).
They are in that forum.
I couldn't be arse searching through a stack of threads to find something that may or may not be there - ling please?
Are you seriously trying to argue the semantics of pedophilia vs. child molestation? I don't care if an individual is capable of being turned on and having sex with and adult counterpart, if they are still victimizing children they are a pedophile, maybe not by the definition of some psychoanalyst whose job it is to validate their existence, but by those of us that could care less about the difference in characterization.
The fact that you are so arduously arguing on behalf of these freaks, is really making ME wonder about you. I have never, ever, seen anyone argue on behalf of abusers like you are, unless they have a dog in the fight. Do you entertain fantasies of pedophilia or child molestation (since the distinction seems to matter to you)?
It doesn't matter if these individuals have not had sexual contact with children, to have a site, entertaining the fantasy of raping children is reprehensible. They should be shunned and ashamed, there is nothing natural about their predilection. They don't deserve a seat at the table nor equal voice to espouse their poison.
No way I'm pouring through the forum to find what you want, because I don't understand what you want.
I'll leave you with this by anonsoldier
"Point out how anything along the lines of "because of what she did, she got raped" basically translates to "Men have the natural state of rapist, so women have to be very careful to protect themselves and if they just didn't do stuff like that, they wouldn't get raped." Once you make that connection, it should become incredibly infuriating to every guy out there because I know that *MY* natural state is DEFINITELY not "rapist" and I'm not some hormone-crazed sex maniac who can't control myself."
If NAMBLA and their sorry, sick ilk want rights, they should convert to Wahhabist Islam and go live in the Middle East, where this sort of thing is permitted.
And yet again I’m getting attacked with the same sorry strawman, but at least this time you have potentially revealed where your whole misconception is coming from.
There is no semantics involved, rather simply two phrases that describe different things.
Paedophile = person who experiences sexual attraction towards children
Child molester = person who molests children
Do understand the distinction between these two phrases?
No, they would be a child abuser or child molester. You don’t get to make up your own terms, and it is worth emphasising that your (deliberate) misuse of language here is the type of definition problem that researchers warn is unhelpful to this topic.
Go for it mate. Insult and denigrate me all you like. It is not as if you are doing anything else, or have demonstrating any evidence ITT that you are capable of putting a factually or research supported argument.
I have never argued on behalf of any abusers. I have never advocated nor defended, in any way, any abusive acts ITT. That is clear as day to anyone who reads my post regardless of how determined you seem to be to mischaracterise and strawman them.
Not a fan of that whole ‘innocent until proven guilty’ idea or the concept that a person has to actually commit a crime before being guilty are you?
I have asked, multiple times, for any evidence that the FB page in question advocated anything like this. No body has presented anything whatsoever, so I will ask again: Do you have any evidence that the FB site in any way matches your characterisation of it?
Simply stating something you wish to be true does not make it so. There is a host of research demonstrating that biology plays a role in this. For example:
I don’t accept that you can label as ‘unnatural’ something people are both with.
I’m actually going to address why I am covering this topic, not that you are owed it given your conduct and utter facile commentary.
1) I get a great deal of motivation and creative juices from a contentious debate, and find that it can clear any writers block that I have. This particular debate helped me to come up with some good ideas and to help me finish off an annual report.
2) I tend to call out bullshit, just a natural tendency of mine. Just because a topic is contentious or an audience hostile is no reason to shirk calling out bullshit. This very site is littered with topics I have gotten involved with full force, so the given topic isn't special in any regard.
3) I see quite a parallel in the argumentation offered by some in this thread and argumentation that was once commonly used (and in some places today still is) against homosexuals. The “it isn’t natural” is a particular offender.
4) This relates to (3), and is the same reason for many of the topics I’ve debated on WWP. On some issues the spreading of bullshit is unhelpful and damaging in the long run. A brief set of examples include:
- Rape myths
- Homosexual myths
- Myths regarding cult victims
- Misconceptions on how medicine works
The present case is just another example. If the goal is to reduce instances of child abuse, then it should be recognised that achieving that goal is not helped by ignorant muppets spreading misinformation and factually incorrect claims. The goal is especially not helped when such misinformation and factually incorrect claims make it less likely for potential perpetrators to seek help prior to committing abuse.
Let me recap the discussion as I set it. I began by challenging the assertion “Pedophilia is not due to hormonal drives. Rape is not due to hormonal drives.” My comment on rape here was to point out that people don’t rape things they don’t have a sexual attraction to, and they would have that sexual attraction due to hormones – ergo hormones play a role in rape.
At this point you commented that “Please spend some time in the NoRape forum, the discussion about hormones:rape is there.” And I then asked for the research papers.
The quote by anonsoldier you give doesn’t fit into to this discussion. I will clarify that pointing out that something plays a role in X (in this case hormones play a role in rape) isn’t the same as stating that X is the cause or is the primary cause for that something.
Bitch, please. Calm down. You are running through this thread on a black stallion, wearing a Zorro mask.
Rape is a crime of domination and power. The sexual gratification is secondary.
When I directed you to the No Rape forum it's because so much of your argument is about rape. I'm not going to find the research papers for you. Rape is a topic fraught with a million books and papers. You would enjoy the discussion there. Probably no one in that thread would agree with you, but hey, you enjoy debating.
I confronted one of my abusers and he seems to think that he did nothing wrong. He apologized for what seemed to him, an unnecessary apology. This confrontation only made me angrier at him and what he did. It is only fueling more hatred against him so I would say it definitely does not help at all. In fact, it does not matter if he was deceased or not, it would not help otherwise.
I think the Facebook page was for people who have some sexual attraction toward children only. The page made explicit that the group didn't want anyone who had ever acted upon that attraction. So I think the "talking through" meant, "how to live on this Earth with these feelings you don't want and can't ever act out irl."
Some people are guessing that a mutual support group for people with sexual fantasies about children will disinhibit some pedophiles. I think that's possible. But those that are disinhibited would probably be disinhibited by all sorts of things, not just a support group.
There are ways to combine fantasy and sex with a legal partner so everybody is basically happy. Just look at old people. You know their mental images are not matching the wrinkly fat person in bed beside them, but still they get off. Pedos can probably find similar solutions and maybe comparing notes with others will help them.
I do have a problem with pedophile "rights," and I'm surprised any pedos would actually join a "rights" group. That's like painting a bullseye on your own ass.
Whenever I'm asked to hate something I already hate maximally, like kid diddlers, my tinfoil starts to tingle. A few clever people are very interested in grooming "target markets" or "tribes," on the Internet that can, at some point, be used as personal armies in a political context. They cynically hate what everyone hates and they love what everyone loves.
Suspicion about the benign nature of that Facebook page centered around the "Rights" in the title. "Help" or "Discussion" or "living in the real world" would have been appropriate for the topic. "Rights" not.
Victims of child sexual abuse win back their power by fighting pedophiles in any way, shape, or form. It's easy to tell the difference between advocates and political maneuvering. IMHO your tinfoil needs adjusting.
Me too. "If I ever did anything that made you uncomfortable I'm sorry." It did give me an acknowledgement, but by then I didn't expect anything except more self -justification, redirecting blame and lies. It's good that it made you angrier and fueled hatred. Go with it.
The idea you should "move on" from child abuse doesn't mean to forget it. Some people can finally forgive the monster and that does give some peace. Don't forgive the act, and don't spend your love or affection on these people, don't give them the "understanding" they ask for.
I think there's a stage in the healing process where rage helps. But in the long run it's not so great to stay stuck there.
In my case, the pedo was my step father. I was 13 and tough enough to tell him I had no interest in his advances and he did back off. When I finally told my mom about what was happening, she kicked me out of the house.
My brother and sister still love him as their dad. I love them but I'm not crazy about him. I don't rage though. I just think he's a limited person I'm better off avoiding.
Yeah, I don't know what kind of rights this refers to. Laying aside the question of whether people act on their attractions for the moment, it's pretty hard to believe that anyone creating a publicly viewable page for their "cause" on the world's largest social media platform isn't making some kind of bid for validation, and I fail to see how pedophilia, whether active or passive, deserves any form of it. Nor do I see what kind of productive dialogue would flow from seeking publicity for such a group; there is no ironclad rule that every problem benefits from public airing.
As the anecdotes above demonstrate, a primary feature of the disordered thinking of those who molest children is complete inability or unwillingness to recognize their own status as predators. This is no great secret on the internet where it's not at all uncommon on forums like Reddit to stumble across pedophiles (active? passive? who the fuck knows...) doing their damnedest to rationalize, justify and generally normalize their warped way of thinking, and the idea of even virtual pedo communities coalescing and circle jerking is beyond fucking noxious. Some shit is just wrong and some people are just fucked.
The right to be able to discuss their feelings? The right to associate with others who understand what they are going through because have the same sexual attractions? The right to be allowed to fucking exist with the biology god dealt them without getting lynched?
It almost seems silly that these points need to be repeated over and over and over again, but here goes again:
1) People have a variety of sexual attractions as a result of their natural physiology and hormones. This can range from necrophilia to foot fetishists, from pyrophilia to fancying old codgers.
2) The existence of such sexual attractions does not mean that the person possessing them will commit a crime acting upon them (heterosexuality doesn’t automatically lead to rape).
If you can grasp those two points, then you will have at least a starting idea of what ‘rights’ may be at issue. None of this arguing for the right to bugger a child, or to own cp or be allowed to publically share fantasies – something that should be obvious but, sadly, mob condemnation ITT seems intent on promoting that falsehood.
A paedophile is someone who possesses a sexual attraction towards children. A child molester is someone who buggers/fondles/whatever a kid. Conflating those is a cheap emotive-driven strawman.
There are some quite fascinating pieces of research when this distinction is adhered to. If you get a chance to read “Understanding and Addressing Sexual Attraction to Children: A Study of Paedophiles in Contemporary Society” you might find some of your ideas on this topic are mistaken. The book features the author’s interaction with self-identified paedophiles (2 of which are women), and it gives an insight into the world of people possessing sexual attractions to children who don’t go around kiddy fiddling.
The following material is taken from ‘Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis For Professionals Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children’, produced in conjunction with the National Center For Missing And Exploited Children and the FBI:
Extrapolating from the previous comments in this thread, I expect that responders to the above argumentation will:
- Pretty much ignore and substantive comment within it.
- Will continue to flog the pedo = molester strawman
- Will continue to apply the least charitable interpretation possible to the meanings of words like ‘rights’ on this topic.
- Will accuse me of being a child molester and/or a pedophile and/or someone who should not have kids.
- May possibly out my sock again for daring to confront their emotive bullshit with facts, reasoned argumentation and dox.
- Will do almost everything under the sun except show where my material is wrong or present dox in that refutes said material.
Some of the commenters ITT have shown they understand these issues (although we likely disagree on much of it), and those commenters I respect and take no issue with.
Other commenters, including one mod who I will assume is not a global mod, clearly do not understand these issues. That lack of understanding, I would have thought, might be an impediment to participating in OpInnocence and/or conducting it in a manner that will achieve meaningful results. Or, for those commenters, is this operation little more than just using phrases like “think of the kiddies” to raise a lynch-mob to get shit taken down off the internet?
Wat's goin on in this thred?
Try this- sadists have no choice about their sexual attractions. I'm not being facetious. These are people who have rape fantasies, and their counterparts are sexually attracted to fantasies about being victimized. Some can be satisfied by mutual play/actions, with "safe words" and parties in private homes. Acting on these fantasies with a non-consenting adult are illegal. They are supporting rape as a legitimate sexual fantasy and discussing committing a crime as a sexual act.
Women and men who have been raped are furious when their assault (a crime) is discussed and the feelings of the rapist are legitimized. There is a thread condemning rape on a protest website. Some of the people ITT include victims of rape. They celebrate taking down the page on Facebook, a company that removes pictures of women breast feeding.
You post in that thread insisting that that group recognizes the legitimacy of rape fantasies, and say the beliefs of those posters are silly.
You get a heated response.
Pedophiles have no choice in their sexual attractions. Some can be satisfied by mutual play/parties with consenting adults. They start a Facebook page, a company that removes pictures of women breast feeding, supporting these fantasies......etc.
There is a heated response to your insistence that we all agree with your opinions. Why are you insulted?
I don’t follow how this applies to what I wrote, at least not unless you start committing the very same strawmen I have gone to great lengths to highlight.
I don’t follow how this even applies ITT given that there is NO EVIDENCE that the facebook page in question ever advocated anything that would ‘support these fantasies’.
I don’t follow the logic you have used above to go from a ‘sadist’, whom you defined as someone who fantasises about rape, to making a statement like ‘Women and men who have been raped are furious when their assault (a crime) is discussed and the feelings of the rapist are legitimized’ – unless you are making the blatant equivocation of sadist = rapist.
I don’t follow how pointing out the biological fact that different people in this world have different sexual attractions allows you to conclude that I was “insisting that that group recognizes the legitimacy of rape fantasies”.
So let me summarise your response.
1) You use another strawman of your own construction, namely that sadist = rapist, and then do a substitution – and what exactly is that supposed to tell me…? That if you make a blatant equivocation you get shitty reasoning? Think we all knew that.
2) Rather than take issue with the content and substance of what I wrote, you decide to ask why I am (apparently) insulted? Because taking the time to lay out a cogent argument, supported with dox, to call out bullshit is…what…an indicator that the poster is insulted….?
I’m not sure if this trolling or just an inability to debate properly.
I'm always fascinated by the use of mountains of supposition, projection and mouth-froothing hate in lieu of the few tiny grains of considered intelligence required for a discussion on such issues as paedophilia, so they can be better understood, rectified and moderated successfully by our society. People who prohibit discussion about paedophilia in favour of the strident self righteous chest-thumping of "normality' are essential pea-brained idiots, nothing less. Their attitudes drive the issue under the carpet and paedophiles into further loathing and self disgust, so fuelling the very engine of the problem (which is ultimately an interrupted emotional development and life-long low self esteem). When someone is so socially vilified, they have no choice, they can't live with themselves if they accept their behaviour as irreversible and perverted, so they must seek to find ways to justify what they do. No paedophile has had a normal childhood development and practising paedophiles are by definition unable to solve their problem without a great deal of understanding, compassion and help.
Theapysts tell me I was basically custom-made to become a pedophile, with all the cliches of victim-hood and all the psychological criteria: a traumatised and abusive childhood, abandonment by both parents as an infant, a very early and perverted sexualisation, and a violent incarcerated pubescence which saw me retreat permanently into the no-man's land of my sudden (and so exciting) escapist fantasies. I remained time-warped in that obsessive initial phase of every 12 to 15 year old boy, because these testosterone fuelled years totally rewired my life. I remained suspended in that normally fleeting pubescent moment while my friends progressed on normally through adolescence. I remained frozen quite terrifyingly in that first moment of "sudden" realisation of my sexuality, obsessed as much with my escapist fantasies as with the young girls who arrived to finally help me define my very first tentative notion of identity - not only as a 'male' but also as a human being. Sex defined me for the first time in my life. It made me realise I was real, 'normal', and a part of some bigger picture, not the nihilistic alien I had been all my life.
Even 40 years later and very happily married with children I've remained in this way a child myself and overwhelmingly, inexplicably (and very distressingly) still primarily attracted to these earliest sex interests. So in theory I'm a pedophile, but in reality? Absolutely not. I have never revisited those easy liaisons, rejecting them with great difficulty simply because I was educated enough to think it through, had enough internal fortitude, and a powerful sense of decency to resist the temptation - as much as it almost drove me crazy doing so. I still grieve this loss, it was like cutting off and discarding the most exciting and pleasurable limb of my existence. And I'm sure I'm far from alone, there would be many men of my generation with similar backgrounds who also have never made a reality of their fantasies. All through my late teens, 20's and 30's, it was so difficult I often wished for an accelerated old age and death, so I wouldn't have be tormented by it anymore. I have always left the pubescents of my cravings alone and slowly retrained my mind to make my adapted and socially 'normal' sexuality a reality, so that other pubescents could experience the childhood and age appropriate relationships they were entitled to. So no, I don't despise myself and I don't give a rat's arse about people who would condemn me for my 'predisposition' as if that alone is enough to define me as some kind of disgusting inferior life form. I am an atheist but have nothing but admiration for myself and my morality, and because I have developed compassion for others who don't have the means to change themselves as I was lucky enough to. I wonder not how to vilify or destroy them so I can overlook my own inadequacies and feel superior, or so I can bask in the comfortable fiction of my social appropriateness, but rather how we can develop a dialogue which will help them, and thereby help prevent the damage they do to other little innocents - as indeed they once were.
Good post, but the above quote simply is not true and is not backed by the available evidence. There are cases where the attraction was due to the very biology those people possessed for example, and plenty of research that interviewed self-identified folks with no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.
Part of the reason this misconception seems to be so widespread is when, after a crime such as rape or murder, a reason for that behaviour is sought. Looking for the fucked up childhood seems to be the commonplace thing to do. There is indeed evidence that those who have been abused have a higher chance of becoming abusers themselves, but no evidence to suggest that the abused have a higher chance of developing sexual attraction to children.
Wall o text. I have tried but can't make it through. Paragraphs?
Ah just some fuckwit try to convince himself he knows what he's blathering about. Sure as shit offa hot shovel he can't convince us.
which fukken bit ?
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!