I haven’t pitted a Doper in a long time, but I’m getting really sick of this creep, Cesario. For those who don’t know, he’s a self-described “open pedophile” (with a stated “age of attraction” of 0-10…ZERO-10) who has been has been polluting the board with a lot of self-martyring puling about how closed-minded people are about guys who fantasize about raping infants. Currently, he’s been hijacking this Polanski thread with a lot of snivelling about how he wishes people wouldn’t keep bringing up the age of the victim, and how nobody should go to jail for “consensual sex.” He’s pretending like we’re diminishing the horror for adult rape victims, but all he’s really doing is trying to is further his sleazeball agenda to advocate for legalizing sex with children.
Cesario, shut the fuck up. You aren’t going to convince anybody to let you fuck toddlers. You aren’t going to convince anybody that children have the cognitive and emotional ability to give consent. All you’re doing is skeeving people out. Get some Depo-Lupron shots, for fuck’s sake, and quit humping our couches.
Every time he shows up in a thread talking about sex with children - and it seems to happen relatively frequently - I am completely and totally skeeved out. And you know, I am totally OK about being skeeved out by someone who openly professes to be sexually attracted to toddlers. SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR KIDDIE SEX FANTASIES ALREADY, CESARIO!
“You’re awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile” is the best line I’ve read here in a little while. Anyway, of course Cesario is sanctimonious. It’s an act. He’s trying to intimidate people so they won’t condemn him. He’s desperate to justify the fact that he lusts after children who can’t walk or talk. He knows how people feel about him. So he does this holier-than-thou routine and says he cares more about rape victims than you do even though he’s a wanna-be rapist, and cares more about kids than you do even though he wants to have sex with them before they have the judgment to realize what a creep he is. He’s obviously had a lot of practice with this kind of deflection, but it’s still completely transparent.
Heh, I don’t know. I think that we should accept the sexuality of a pedophile. AS LONG AS THEY NEVER ACT UPON IT. I’ve got some sexual kinks that I would rather not be judged by, luckily for me they are more mainstream and are not of children. I always preferred older women, I guess I have some kind of Oedipal complex.
At the same time, we have so much understanding for transexuals, homosexuals, asexuals, or whateversexuals. It would suck to be a pedophile and have an attraction to young children. Can you imagine having society expect you to be celibate and unsatisfied for your whole life?
I have sympathy for Cesario, AS LONG AS HE NEVER ACTS UPON IT. If he touched my daughter I’d probably kill him myself.
It’s sad to have such an affliction but Cesario, you have a debilitating disease, it is not a valid lifestyle choice and never should be considered one. There is something wrong with you. It is not ok, it is just something you have to deal with.
I have a fair amount of sympathy for someone who realises they have pedophile tendencies, and then does whatever it takes to control them. I am happy to accept that people do not get to choose the things that turn them on.
I have no sympathy at all for someone who acknowledges these urges, and then goes on a campaign to legitimise the acts involved. This really seems to be what Cesario is about, with his belief that there should be no age of consent. It is impossible to read his claim of “yet another reason we shouldn’t have an age of consent” without concluding he is a predator who would act out his urges, if only he could do so legally. He doesn’t see anything wrong with fucking children, he’s just afraid he’ll go to jail if he does so.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pit him.
And I have no sympathy for him. I would maybe if he appeared to me more as the kind of pedo who is genuinely pained by his attraction and does everything he can to never act on it, seeks therapy or whatever else could help him.
But instead he is the type of pedo who crafts a huge litmus test to allow young precocious (or just carefully instructed/groomed to pass) children to be able to give consent because they know more about sex than “it involves a peepee and a hoohah.”
On preview I took too damn long, so what Gary Kumquat said.
I’m willing to give him “some” benefit of the doubt because I do think he makes one good point in the quote provided by E-Sabbath, unless maybe I’m reading too much into it. I do think that rape is rape and isn’t quite the same thing as statutory rape. If someone has sex with a 13 year old against her will, the fact that she’s 13 and not 18 really doesn’t change the fact that it’s rape. Age of Consent is relevant when trying to decide if someone is mature enough to say yes, but age is utterly irrelevant when the answer is no. So, in that sense, I will say that it makes more sense to say that he raped a 13 year old, rather than refer to it as, or charge him with, statutory rape.
That much said, everything else he said in that quote is extraordinarily creepy. The purpose of statutory rape law isn’t to criminalize consensual sex, it’s an attempt to protect people that very may not have the cognitive and emotional maturity to understand what it means when they consent to sex. There are countless 13 year olds out there that think they understand what it means to have sex, and many of them do, but there’s a big difference between a 13 year old girl having sex with her 13 year old boy friend who is probably equally clueless, and her having sex with someone who is sufficiently older, knows that she may not understand, but could even potentially manipulate her consent (consciously or not) when she might not otherwise give it.
Granted, I’m not overly familiar with the facts of the Polanski case, but I still can’t see how the hell that can be used in any way to make it okay for adults to have sex with minors. Yes, he is guilty of rape and he should have been charged with that IN ADDITION to the statutory charges. But I can’t for the life of me follow the logic in how that means that age of consent should go away. His logic makes absolutely ZERO sense. Let’s replace the age of consent idea with assisted suicide, which is also illegal and thus is another case where, “yes” is legally identical to “no”. So if I follow his logic, then there’s no incentive not to just go around killing people on a whim.
So yeah, he may really have attraction to infants, as long as he doesn’t act on it, it’s creepy as hell, but he’s not harming anyone. But seriously, he should also realize that that’s not something that needs to be brought up in irrelevant topics and then attempting to hijack a thread on some crusade to legalize sex with minors. The very fact that he thinks it exists to illegalize consentual sex shows means he either has a very skewed perspective of the world in comparing the cognitive abilities of a full grown adult with that of a toddler, or he’s deliberately being obtuse as part of an elaborate trolling scheme. Either way, he needs to stop.
Just for the record, he has appeared in 24 threads, all but two of them on either sex or juveniles, or both.
He says (in one of the two on other subjects) that he was badly bullied.
Apart from the above, he seems to have a one track mind, nay, an obsession when it comes to sex and children. It can’t be healthy. It’ll all end in tears, mark my words.
“One finding that has robust support is the tendency toward grossly distorted thinking. Pedophiles commonly experience their sexual urges as ego-syntonic. Presumably in an effort to justify behavior that is widely socially condemned, pedophiles frequently rationalize, minimize, and normalize their sexual interaction with children, sometimes to the point of delusional ideation. Relatedly, several studies have noted high levels of schizotypal and other cluster A personality traits in this population.”
Just one source, so as not to over cite, but pretty much a consensus in psychiatric literature that this is typical behavior. Engaging this guy in debate is pretty much pointless and the reason I withdrew from the sexual attraction thread where he first started posting. Arguing with a psycho is a waste of time. I’ve been following his posts as they fit the pathology classically, and fit the basic criteria for a sociopath as well. However I’m confused as to why in one thread about coming out he’s gay, and in a sexual orientation poll he’s heterosexual.
I am a little unclear because the whole Polanski thing happened before I was born and I’m just getting some of these details now. The article I read said he claimed it was consensual - so setting aside age of consent for a second, did she say yes or did she say no? (and it does make a difference, even though it is a crime either way)
I don’t think it does. You can’t have consensual sex with a thirteen year old, because a thirteen year old isn’t capable of legally consenting. See? Easy peasy.
