# Cesario, you're awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973 "2009-09-29T14:48:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/221 "2009-09-30T23:16:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If someone said, “I want to have sex with your 4 year old,” would you feel the need to hear them out? Because that’s what **Cesario** is saying. Sometimes I think people are merely pointing out the flaws in your comparison, not the actual subject. I actually think that pedophilia is similar to an obsessive disorder. These people actually can’t think about anything other than their “sexuality.” At least, not without psychological help. So it makes sense that it would come up in conversation a lot. People have often said that obsessive compulsive disorder and really strong lust are hard to distinguish. I mean, how many times have you had to fight the urge to act like a stalker with someone you were “in love” with? It seems to be a recurring theme in popular culture, at least. I don’t know whether Cesario is really that pathological, or just a sock/troll. And to answer Diogenes question: of course not. I’ve actually had the experience of having to tell a kid at that age what kind of touching was and wasn’t appropriate. Skeeved me out more than you’d ever imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/222 "2009-09-30T23:30:50Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It’s logical to assume that **Cesario** currently has access to young children – heck, he’s already publicly admitted that he’s in the process of grooming a four-year-old girl. Now, it’s unclear whether or not this potential victim is a family member, or the child of a neighbor, or just someone he met randomly on the street, but if he’s willing to confess that he’s actively seeking contact with that particular child, there are probably dozens that he _hasn’t_ told us about." I wonder if he gets any from trolling the internet. At least the minimum age of 13 here is above the ages that he would like to rape. Why again is he permitted to post here? ---
**Author:** ![koeeoaddi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/koeeoaddi/32/408_2.png) [@koeeoaddi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/koeeoaddi)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/223 "2009-09-30T23:51:30Z")
Don’t have anything really substantive to add except that this is the most richly deserved pitting I’ve read in the six years I’ve been here. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/224 "2009-10-01T00:28:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, he only wants to do it because it will make him come? Do you need more information or would that be enough? I’ll continue to need information so long as you remain so comically puffed up with outrage. Is the eye working alone, or is it teaming up with its twin to menace Cesario? Two against one ain’t fair, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/225 "2009-10-01T01:01:38Z")
Even worse – glasses – four eyes. With built in magnifiers for burning out toddler eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uosdwis_R.Dewoh)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/226 "2009-10-01T02:43:52Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Unless they’re from Lapland, in which case they’re Li’l Lap Ladyboys. Having your nuts bit off by a Lap Ladyboy, thats the way I wanna go! That or getting caught in the gears of a combine. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/227 "2009-10-01T02:58:51Z")
> [@koeeoaddi](#): > > Don’t have anything really substantive to add except that this is the most richly deserved pitting I’ve read in the six years I’ve been here. Yet I’m amazed at those who make legalistic excuses for him. **Cesario** should keep his sick ideas to himself, though it’s nice that he broadcasts. Good to know which of the Usual Suspects to round up first. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/228 "2009-10-01T03:33:19Z")
> [@Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](#): > > Having your nuts bit off by a Lap Ladyboy, thats the way I wanna go! That or getting caught in the gears of a combine. Serious anecdote. The combine thing happened to an old-timer who works a farm across from us about two years ago. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/229 "2009-10-01T03:54:59Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > \*Could “macroscopic” become the new age of consent? “I like jamming blastulae into my urethra”. This is possibly the weirdest sentence I have ever typed. But sadly, not the weirdest I ever said. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/230 "2009-10-01T04:35:40Z")
What’s that internet rule about how if you can think of it, there’s already porn for it? ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/231 "2009-10-01T05:29:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe he really genuinely does think that it’s ok. > > I think more likely that emotionally on some level a pedo is like a child and as such do not see the gulf between them and a small child because they can relate to small children better than they can relate to adults. Unfortunately the pedophile has achieved their sexual prime so these sorts of intimate feelings are twisted by the desire for intimacy through sex. mswas…I do agree with you actually. I think that there’s not any one cause of pedophillia. I think it’s the “right combonation” that causes pedophillia. Like, Aspie like behavoirs (being totally clueless about social protioal) almost sociopathic thinking that it’s OK/ not knowing that it’s wrong, and an OCD style obession. Remeember that dude who they thought might be connected to the Jon Benet Ramsey case? Remember how he was OBESSED with the case? I also got a very “creepy” vibe from him. It does seem like a lot of “oreinated pedos” exude this really creepy vibe, that’s almost like how you can tell that some obiviously crazy people are indeed crazy. As for a cure…I dunno…And you know…I just thought of something! Pedos have used the justification of " oh I can’t change it" as “proof” its a legit orietnation…BUT hell we can’t even cure a lot of behavoiral issues. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/232 "2009-10-01T07:20:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11484815#post11484815)… **ZERO** -10) I’m glad you pointed that out. There are a lot of people who need to have it repeated for them. You wouldn’t think so, but the last guy who decided to post a thread complaining about me was really bad at keeping the details straight, so good for you. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533852) 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. So you don’t think it’s bad that people keep assuming it’s a statutory rape instead of the actual rape it really was? No one would be defending it if they didn’t assume it was a statutory rape. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > **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. Not familiar with that drug. Can you describe it’s effects for me? > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > So, what you’re saying is, he’s this guy? > [Cops: Island man snared in undercover sex sting - silive.com](http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/cops_island_man_snared_in_unde.html) > > I thought what he was saying was kind of creepy, but I forgot he was that guy. Swing and a miss. You did read in the article about his interest in a 12 year old, right? Even from just the information provided by the OP, you’d know that’s outside my AoA. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > … so when yes is identical to no, there’s no reason not to rape people. Therefore, we should let people be able to have sex with five year olds. What? Therefore we should recognize that age of consent violations don’t fit the standard definition of rape, and calling them rape does a disservice to people, like the 13 year old mentioned in the thread, who were actually raped. > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > 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! I haven’t gone into my fantasies in any of the threads on this board. I already assumed no one wanted to hear about them. > [@Lust4Life](#): > > I think that this just has to be a woosh of the sickest sort. No. > [@Lust4Life](#): > > If not I would love to meet \*\*Cesario \*\* IRL, just a few seconds would do it. I imagine that’s all it would take, yes. Still, I’m disinclined to go to the trouble of meeting you for a fight. You’re just not that important to me or my goals. > [@Marley23](#): > > “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. Again, no. > [@Marley23](#): > > He’s trying to intimidate people so they won’t condemn him. Yeah, because that’s a strategy that’s just brilliantly conceived, thus the existence of this thread. :rolleyes: > [@Marley23](#): > > He’s desperate to justify the fact that he lusts after children who can’t walk or talk. Why in the world would that need to be justified in the first place? > [@Marley23](#): > > 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. Where in the world did you get the idea that I wanted to rape anyone or have sex with anyone who wasn’t capable of meaningful consent? > [@Marley23](#): > > He’s obviously had a lot of practice with this kind of deflection, but it’s still completely transparent. Good thing we have you to point this stuff out to us. Completely wrong, but you’re still doing a valuable service. > [@mswas](#): > > 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? That’s unpleasant, but hardly the worst of it. Need I point out the number of people out for my blood just for the crime of existing? > [@mswas](#): > > I have sympathy for **Cesario** , AS LONG AS HE NEVER ACTS UPON IT. If he touched my daughter I’d probably kill him myself. Regardless of your daughter’s feelings on the matter? > [@mswas](#): > > 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 respectfully disagree. > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > 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. No, no real fear of prison. I remain arrogant enough to believe I could avoid criminal consequences myself. My concern is, and always has been, the safety of my hypothetical lover from the psychological torture she’d be put through by society in an effort to remake her into the rape victim everyone assumes she must be. > [@bucketybuck](#): > > “Please, please won’t somebody think of the children” > > Oh, wait, he does. You might not believe it, but people have used that line in all seriousness while I’ve been debating with them. Absolutely hilarious. > [@myskepticsight](#): > > 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 have no interest in your pity, and certainly not if you require me to be a self-hating wretch in order to obtain it. So sorry to have to inform you of how little value your opinion of me is. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > 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. Glad to see we’re in agreement here. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > 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, Can you provide me with an example of the age of consent ever protecting anyone? Any example where the only crime was an age of consent violation that we’ll all agree was a horrible thing that should never have been allowed to happen. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > 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, Your thoughts on this? > [@](#): > > A lot of people have made the point that it’s appropriate for children to explore their sexuality with similarly aged peers, and that adult sexuality somehow taints any encounter which crosses generational lines. I would like to ask those individuals how it is, that a person can not be ready for sex with “mature, responsible adults” but can be perfectly ready for sex with “immature, irresponsible teenagers”. > > Have the stereotypes reversed recently? Are teenagers now renown for their compassion, ability to delay gratification, and their tendency not to pressure for sex when their partners aren’t interested? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > knows that she may not understand, If she doesn’t understand, why is it okay for the 13 year old to pressure her into sex? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > but could even potentially manipulate her consent (consciously or not) when she might not otherwise give it. I trust you have a response to this, then: > [@](#): > > Now, for those of you who feel that children can be passively manipulated, and always do whatever an adult tells them to do, I’d like to ask how much success they’ve had making children eat unwanted vegetables? I mean if it’s obvious that every time an adult and a child interact, the child will deffer to the adult, then obviously, no one would ever have a problem getting a child to engage in healthy eating habits. > > You see, children can say “no” to adults when they want to. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > 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. There’s a reason I opose laws against assisted suacide. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > 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. I hardly think bringing up the age of consent in the Polanski case when people were having trouble grasping why people assumed the rape was statutory instead of actual is an irrelavent hyjack. But I guess you’re entitled to your opinion. > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > 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. If my mind were really one-track, would not all of the threads I appeared in be about the same thing? > [@LunaticFringette](#): > > It’s all part of the pedophile pathology… > > “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.” > > [http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331?verify=0](http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331?verify=0) > > 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. Considering there are no behaviors to normalize, I’d say the psychiatric litterature is making the same mistake a lot of lay people do (assuming, of course, you’re correct about this being a concensus), mistaking the word “pedophile” to be a synonym for “child molester”. Personally, I trust the psychiatric litterature (in the majority) to be more careful about this sort of distinction than you are making them out to be. > [@LunaticFringette](#): > > 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. 😕 When was I coming out as gay? That isn’t right at all. > [@DianaG](#): > > 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. Just because it doesn’t make **enough** difference to make the behavior qualify as legal, does not mean that it makes no difference at all. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > While I see what you’re going for, I don’t think this is a fair comparison at all and this is the sort of reasoning behind so much of the antipathy towards homosexuality. Even if one views homosexuality and pedophilia as equally immoral acts, there still remains the fundamental difference that homosexual acts can occur between two (or more) consenting adults. By definition, it is impossible for pedophilia to occur between two consenting adults. Works just fine if you replace the word “adults” with the word “people”, though. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > I don’t know, seems like an odd thing to troll about. Especially when he makes rather bold statements [like this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11590442&postcount=115): > > My wild-ass guess is that **Cesario** has recently “come out” via a pedophile activist message board (God only knows which one), and he’s currently basking in the attention of people who have not been exposed to that particular point of view. One wonders if he’s even aware of how many law enforcement professionals post here in their spare time, or if the moderators are (perhaps) allowing him to continue spouting his irrational drivel until they can figure out which sock account he belongs to. Nah, I’ve been out for some time online. I hardly ever visit girlchat (which I only bothered to visit after I’d come out elsewhere, and is the only pedophile activist website I’ve ever been involved in). Been through several “non” boards before this one, and really just don’t have any problem speaking openly anymore, regardless of the hostility and/or veiled threats. > [@FriarTed](#): > > I hope he only humps couches! > > If he ever is about to take action on his desires, I hope he recalls what Jesus said about millstones & what course Dennis Miller suggested. (I actually heard a usually-quite-gentle Seventh Day Adventist radio minister quote both Jesus & Dennis Miller regarding this.) > > Jesus- [Matthew 18 KJV - At the same time came the disciples - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18&version=KJV) > > Dennis Miller- I can’t believe there’s no YouTube but this article has Dennis’ quote & a news story about one man who tried to do the right thing. I agree with Jesus completely on this one. Which is why I’m doing what I can to stop the harm that is routinely inflicted on children because they were sexually active. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think anyone’s arguing that he doesn’t have a legal right to advocate whatever opinion he wants. What makes him exceptionally distasteful (and what sets off alarms) is that he doesn’t recognize the act of having sex with children (even with toddlers) as in any way wrong or harmful to the victim. Anyone who is able to see a 4 year old as a sexual object, and does so completely ego-syntonically (i.e. without any moral discomfort about it) is disconnected and self-justifying enough to basically be skating around in a sociopathic/predatory state of delusion, whether he’s acted on it or not, and is definitely someone to be wary about. You haven’t read anything I’ve written on the moral issues involved, have you? While I have no moral issues regarding my own thoughts (and I’ll be damned if I apologieze for those) I’ve actually been quite clear on the fact that there are plenty of moral issues involved. If you have any particular scenario you want to run by me, go right ahead. Maybe it’ll clear up this misunderstanding you have that I lack any moral limits whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/233 "2009-10-01T07:22:19Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > I mentioned this in the thread that Marley referenced. > Cesario replied in a way that I have noticed he does when faced with a difficult point: he ignores it. > > No mention of the correlation between self justification and his ability to control his desires. What are you talking about. His point was clearly that self-loathing was a pre-requisite for his sympathies, and I informed him of precisely what I thought of the value of that sympathy. What point do you think I ignored? > [@Angry Lurker](#): > > Is he really that guy? If so wtf is he allowed on the internet for at all? No, I’m not him. I’m someone else, as I suspect the poster knew full well. > [@Angry Lurker](#): > > But ten year olds? Five year olds? Honestly, what the fuck? How can that **not** do harm? What mechanism are you seeing for this “harm” you’re worried about? I’m more than willing to help, but you’re going to need to help me understand your underlying assumptions here. > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > 13 is kind of arbitrary, although I am fully on board with setting the minimum age for sexual consent well above that. But what is not arbitrary is the fairly clear line between prepubescent and postpubescent. A 13-year-old might well fall on either side of that line. I can understand someone being attracted to a postpubescent 13-year-old (but not acting on that urge). I do NOT understand someone being attracted to a prepubescent child. Would you like me to try to explain it, or would you prefer to remain in the dark on this for fear of being squicked out? > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I don’t think there’s much if any historical precedent for that. Mohamed historical enough for you? Six year old wife, marriage consumated at age nine, and he was considered to have had remarkable restraint for waiting that long. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > There is some historical precedent, such as the [Sperm Warriors of New Guinea](http://www.gettingit.com/article/56). However, such rituals are _accepted by their culture_, which makes a HUGE difference. So again we’re down to the current culture as the root problem, yes? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > As I stated in that thread, this is precisely what makes the pediophilic mindset so dangerous. **Cesario** is misinterpreting the child’s interest as _sexual_ interest, while the child is grossly ignorant of the adult’s actual intent. A situation like that is a recipe for disaster. Where in the world did you get the idea that I thought she was sexually interested in me? We chatted. Are you incapable of chatting with someone attractive you don’t expect to fuck you later? > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I see your distinction, but I’m just not sure that an inability to control one’s sexual attraction isn’t necessarily something worthy of sympathy. I do think the comparison to insanity is useful because there’s varying degrees of sympathy for insanity as well. For instance, someone who has schizophrenia and hallucinates an imaginary world but never harms anyone gets sympathy. Someone else with schizophrenia that hears the voice of god that tells him to murder 17 children gets none and many people would say he’s a monster and other such things. > > Everyone has inner demons, some substantially greater than others, but what differentiates people in how they receive sympathy is how they behave. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this thread has had an urge to do something that they or society would consider wrong, but I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that anyone deserves sympathy just for having urges. What about when one has urges to do morally neutral or even positive things? > > But really, when it comes down to it, if someone has powerful urges they can’t control, regardless of what those urges are (sex, drugs, or something else), I think at a certain point it crosses the threshold of insanity. As I said in a previous post, I think what sets **Cesario** aside as different is that he clearly believes that the consent of someone aged 0-10 is fundamentally the same as someone aged 18+. If this is true, he most definitely has a skewed world perspect that very well could be insanity. > > So, in this case, I really see it that his urges aren’t so strong that he can’t control them, and thus isn’t insane and he should learn to do a better job of it. Or he truly has some urges that he can’t control, and probably needs to get help. Where in the world did you get the idea that I assume people are capable of full consent from birth? Are you incapable of recognizing that I can find someone attractive without automatically assuming they are willing and able to reciprocate those attractions? > [@TubaDiva](#): > > “He didn’t kill her, he just raped her, so that’s not so bad.” Surely that’s not what you mean. > > He took her home afterwards so that makes him . . . what, a considerate rapist? So he gets points for that? > > Adults are responsible for what they do. Adults that have sex with children are wrong. Period. There is no gradation of wrongness, it’s just plain wrong. Anything else the adult did would only add to the inherent wrongness, not mitigate any of it by absence. If it’s possible to add to the wrongness, it’s impossible for the lack of those things to not mitigate by their absence. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, we’re asking him to refrain from expressing his views at our figurative table, not saying he can’t take it outside somewhere. Got any suggestions on where? Seems to me there’s no place or venue that isn’t owned by someone, so if you don’t think that it’s inappropriate to ban speech soely because someone owns the locale, what zones of free speech actually exist according to you? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And no, I would not let my kids (three girls, all in his target range) anywhere near him, so I guess I’m grateful, to that extent, that h’s willing to identify himself up front. > > I wonder if he did so for the mother of that “very attractive 4-year old” he was hitting on. No, but then I wasn’t hitting on her either. Just keeping her from wandering off and falling down a nearby stairwell by having a nice chat with her while her mother was busy a few feet away. > [@Jodi](#): > > He can say whatever he likes and I am by no means raising an argument against free speech. But he runs the risk that those who hear his free speech will react strongly against it, with contempt and disgust, as I do. He is entitled to say what he wants; he is not entitled to make people hear it, nor to dictate their responses if and when they do. My response is to consider a person who doesn’t realize the inappropriateness and fundamental wrongness of his impulses, to be far more sick than a person who _does_ realize that wrongness and therefore does not defend it, discuss it, or tell anecdotes about it. He gets nothing from me but scorn. > > There is a point at which tolerance becomes a negative, when we proceed as if in the name of Tolerance we should not name that which is evil nor raise our voices against it. Sometimes I think people around here keep their minds so open their brains fall out. I’m fairly consistent in my view that people have an inherent right to declare their ignorance and bigotry in the public forum of their choosing. > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > That, right there, is the problem. He is trying to legitimize his desires. He does not see them as wrong. > > I cannot find any sympathy for that position. Unless I have completely misunderstood Cesario’s postings, it is hard not to infer that they would have sex with a child if they could get away with it. You have completely misunderstood my postings. Glad we cleared that up. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > How do we know this guy isn’t a troll? > > He’s certainly hitting all the right buttons to outrage and offend and this type of extreme position is just the sort of thing that trolls love to stake out. I mean, zero to ten? That lower figure is purely for effect. He actually wrote that previously in one of his posts, then edited it out. I saw his post go up and was in the process of replying when I realized he’d removed the quote I was about to comment on. I think he was worried that such a statement made the trolling too obvious. Later, when he felt more confident in his trolling, he posted it again. > > I think this guy is pure 100% bullshit. Um, I edited it out of that post for two reasons. One, I had already stated it elsewhere on the forum. And two, a moderator asked me not to mention it in the thread in question. I was asked directly, and I naturally answered before I remembered that the moderator had asked me not to. Hope that clears this little misunderstanding up. > [@Shodan](#): > > OTOH, he has also stated that the only thing stopping him from molesting children is that he doesn’t want to suffer the consequences. Also that violating an unjust law, which he considers laws against child molestation to be, is a moral duty. It’s just a moral duty he (allegedly) doesn’t carry out because he is not willing to suffer the consequences. > > He waffled a little after he said it, and then went into attack mode, which is often a sign of recognition that one has said too much. > > As I mentioned, he is mentally if not physically fapping it because he gets to discuss his perversions. Or maybe he is just a troll. > > Regards, > Shodan Shodan, once again, I have never brought up consequences to myself in any of my explainations for why I don’t fuck kids. I’ve spoken exclusively about the consequences to those kids. Me getting caught doesn’t enter into it because I am arrogant enough to believe I could avoid being caught if I chose to violate the law. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > No, it wasn’t. It was about statutory rape, but the girl in question wasn’t prepubescent. Besides, even if she were underage, it was still rape because of the forcible element. That was kind of my point. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > Mostly just responding to this because it’s here… Anyway, I agree that there’s a fuzzy line. There are probably plenty of 16 year olds who are at least as mature as 18 year olds, if not moreso. I can understand arguing that maybe it should be fuzzy like, for instance, always okay over 18, always wrong under 16, and case by case in between (note: not advocating that, just a supposition). However, he’s specifically advocated NO age of consent. Of course, my specific proposals are closer to “always case by case” rather than “always okay”. > [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I agree with the second sentence here. I think unpopular viewpoints are great because it’s often difficult to understand what someone that is widely looked at as utterly repugnant can possibly be thinking. However, it’s only helpful if that person presents it in a helpful way. When someone puts forth a wildly unpopular view, like his assertion that age of consent laws exist to illegalize consensual sex, it needs to be supported. > > This has at least not been my perspective. If he really wants to debate honestly about age of consent laws, then I’d like to see some evidence put forth to support his ideals. Does he think a 4 year old can meaningfully give consent to sexual advances? Maybe there’s some studies he can provide about the cognitive and emotional development of children that flies in the face of the common belief that 4 year olds aren’t as developed as adults. > > Sure, I think some people are just skeeved out and want him gone. But I don’t think that just because he has an unpopular opinion and people don’t want to talk to him about it means that it’s necessarily some kind of witch hunt. He really comes across like he has some sort of serious psychological problems, and he’s not even attempting to keep it relevant. Someone upthread said something to the effect that he’d been in 26 threads and 24 of them he’d mentioned this. It’s the mark of someone who either has a very serious problem or is trolling; not someone who wants an honest debate about the ethics of age of consent laws. > > If he’s honest the I would like him to either be debate it honestly, or shut up and get help. If he’s not, he’s a troll and still needs to go. Would you care to support the current magic-age-line-based-on-nothing, or do you feel that only unpopular views require anything resembling support? You want to talk about honest debate? Maybe you should consider what that means. > [@Jettboy](#): > > I was slightly familiar with Cesario, mainly from the “Youth Sufferage” thread, but after reading this I am thoroughly creeped out. I just want to rub myself down with Purell. Hey, now. I don’t bring up my preferred lubricants. Why do you feel the need to bring up yours? 😉 > [@Jettboy](#): > > Anyone who can seriously write the phrase “…very attractive 4-year old” is… I 'dunno; help me out with an adjective. Repugnant? Icky? I just can’t get that phrase out of my mind; I imagine it being delivered in a lispy, wet, asthmatic whisper punctuated by “…heh, heh, heh.” Are you looking for [squicky](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick)? > [@Jodi](#): > > I haven’t declared any such thing. But I think when you embrace a POV that is repugnant, you take the chance that people will in no uncertain terms inform you that your POV is repugnant and that you are contemptible for holding it. > > That’s what free speech means. Person A gets to say whatever disgusting indefensible thing he wants, and then Person B gets to point out it’s disgusting and indefensible. Free speech doesn’t mean no consequences for anything you say. Precisely. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Looking at that first post: > > I don’t think he was saying he was gay, but that by “coming out,” he meant coming out as a pedophile. The last line of the post would bolster this. > > I think this is not an inconsistency, but an example of his trying to “normalize” his pedophilia by trying to place it in the same kind of category as homosexuality, and share his story as if it belongs in the same discussion as just another sexual orientation. The thread (at least at the time I was posting) was about how people react to other people’s reactions to them coming out. My story seemed relevent, since regardless of the specific content, I liked that it wasn’t a big deal to her, and that she didn’t make a big deal of it. Some had mentioned the possibility that they would be offended by someone treating it as irrelevent, so I decided to voice my opinion on behalf of the other side. > [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > And really would anyone’s reaction to “I’m a pedophile” be “oh, is that all?” Hers was. > [@LunaticFringette](#): > > Truly an odd choice for a reply, but remember who we’re talking about. Cesario takes every opportunity to turn the attention on himself. And I think Dio nails Cesario’s attempt as “trying to place it in the same kind of category as homosexuality, and share his story as if it belongs in the same discussion as just another sexual orientation.” > > The reaction of “oh, is that all?” I can’t rationalize other than possibly being from someone who also doesn’t grasp the sociopathy of it all. No, just someone who knew me well enough not to assume I was going to go out and torture small children for my own amusement. > [@Marley23](#): > > Doubtful. But in any case, [he posted elsewhere that he is straight](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11595036&post11595036) (because being attracted to elementary school girls is just one type of being a straight man, see?). I did ask the thread creator whether I should select straight or other. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/234 "2009-10-01T07:23:41Z")
> [@malkavia](#): > > Thank you, Dio. Thank you, thank you, thank you. > > Being a pedophile is icky, but being so stuck on yourself that you need to make every thread you post to about you and your pedophilia is WAY over the line. Oh please, I make one comment in response to something that was already posted, then everyone decides it’s oh so important to make sure no one assumes they support my existence, so they attack me, and I’m the one derailing the thread. :rolleyes: You’ll note that in neither the suffrage, nor the circumcision, nor the abortion thread was my sexual orientation something I brought up, nor was it even recognized until someone from the other threads decided to dredge it up. > [@malkavia](#): > > The transparent attempts to debate Youth Rights as a gateway to eliminating age of consent laws is, to be honest, completely effing insulting. So it’s okay to opress and enslave people so long as it’s the oposite of what pedophiles want? I should really think about finding a way to turn this knee-jerk reaction to the advantage of the youth-rights cause. After all, if everything I believe in must be evil because a pedophile believes in it, maybe if I propose the exact oposite people will be so horrified that they agree with a pedophile that they’ll change their minds and start adopting more rational policies. :rolleyes: > [@malkavia](#): > > The fact that people debate him about ANYTHING other than yay vs. nay on the kiddie diddling is ridiculous. It’s clearly the only passion he either A.) has or B.) is willing to share on this message board. This, my friends, is not “a refreshingly different opinion”, this is trolling. Self-fulfilling prophecy much? > [@malkavia](#): > > And to put himself in the same league with homosexuals is beyond disgusting. I’ve never met an upstanding gay citizen who had to break up with his boyfriend because he turned 11. :eek: You are aware that teliophiles also have an age of attraction, and that adults do continue to age, right? Do you stop loving someone when they turn sixty and start to get sagging breasts and wrinkles? If not, why do you assume it’s different for me? > [@malkavia](#): > > I mean, to even remotely legitamize this individuals position is beyond awful. He will NEVER have a meaningful relationship with ANYONE, so no.. it’s nothing like being gay. By the time that a girl is old enough to fully understand the implications of loving him, she’ll be out of his age range. How is that anything but a sickness? Love the baseless assumptions you’re making about my personal life. > [@malkavia](#): > > It’s clearly not a physical attraction or he’d just look for women with a congenital kidney disease (a la Gary Coleman) OR he’d just accept that we don’t always end up with our physical ideal. > > No, his preference is actually rooted in controlling another human being, taking someones innocence away and/or playing God. Just like a rapist, just like a murderer. Yeah-huh? You happen to know any adult females who are physically prepubescent? You assume that it isn’t a physical attraction to the body type, but the fact of the matter is, that’s precisely what it is. I just figured if I started waxing poetic on the subject people would get even more squicked out than they currently are, and that seemed rude. > [@malkavia](#): > > To make the case that our refusal to appreciate his contributions to the board is just another example of how intolerant we are of other viewpoints is the Worst. Insult. to Republicans, Christians and anti-circumcision proponents that I’ve EVER witnessed. Evar. You are aware that I **am** an anti-circumcision proponent, right? > [@malkavia](#): > > He’s no more acceptable than someone who says, “Gosh, I could really go for brutally slaughtering your daughter. I mean, I won’t because it’s against the law.. but daaaaang, I wish it wasn’t!” _hurk_ And what do you think the penalty for uttering those words ought to be? > [@moonstarssun](#): > > True, but I’m an abuse survivor and definitely wouldn’t react that way. Quite the opposite in fact. > > As for our resident pedophile, I agree with the opinion that he’s a troll. Not necessarily meaning that he’s _not_ a pedophile too, but I think he’s getting off on stirring people up this way. > > He’s disgusting, no doubt. But for me, it’s a fascinating insight into the mind of the person who once hurt me. Too bad it also makes me want to scrub my brain with bleach. What makes you think that the child molester who attacked you was a pedophile? Most child molesters aren’t, you know. > [@mswas](#): > > And wasn’t his point that the crime generally was rape, irrespective of her age? Yes it was. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > That’s one of the things that really pisses me off about it. Now, maybe because I’m straight, it’s kind of patronizing, but the fact that he keeps comparing his “persecution” to that suffered by homosexuals; that he considers NAMBLA simply another gay rights group, tortured simply by homophobic bigots…it really, REALLY angers me. > > Dude, NAMBLA is NOT protecting itself from “homophobic bigots.” > > It just angers me, because I see so many people complaining about how gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because they’re “perverts.” People like him don’t help, when they use that kind of justification. NAMBLA is what it is, and it’s a product of its history. The fact of the matter is that age of consent laws are used to discriminate against homosexuals, and NAMBLA was set up in response to just such a discrimination attempt. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > (Please, PLEASE tell me he has no plans to become a parent!) No immediate plans. Why? Suspect that you would feel compelled to rape your own daughters once they turned 18, do you? > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > So if we’re agreed that the crime was rape no matter what, and she wasn’t pre pubescent, where is the pedophilia coming in? I mean, yes, it was statutory rape, but statutory rape doesn’t always involve pedophilia. You seem to be reading it in, but otherwise, it doesn’t come in. Hence me not bringing it in. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He was saying there should be no age of consent at all. His intent was to use the Polanski case as an excuse to advocate for making it open season on children of all ages. There are alternatives to magic age lines based on nothing… > [@Claude\_Remains](#): > > Pregnant chicks are the best fuck cause you can get some pussy and a little head at the same time. That joke ignores so much about human anatomy that I’m not sure where to start. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I wish you folks would stop muddying the water with discussion of 13 and 16 year olds who might conceivably have the cognitive ability, and **the physical development, to understand what sex is**. I’m even pretty certain there are places where the age of consent is lower than either of those. How do breasts and pubic hair aid in understanding anything? > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > In the [Youth Suffrage](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533004&highlight=suffrage) thread, [Cesario responded to a series of questions I asked another poster](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11594651&postcount=88), and **he made it explicitly clear that he believes there are 5 year olds out there mature enough to give consent for sex.** Yes, and I recognize that this belief isn’t really based on anything, and I’m certainly not demanding that it be treated as fact soely because I believe it. You, however, seem to believe that the oposite should be treated as fact soely because you believe it. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Oh, and just as an aside, mentioned that he might be willing to give a gun to a five year old as a gift, if it were legal to do so. Yep, got to love how that might gets lost in the suffle so that people just assume that there aren’t any actual requirements involved in that. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > This guy is really, seriously dangerous. > > I wouldn’t say this if his only issue was sexual attraction to children, even infants. The danger is that he has convinced himself that children feel sexual attraction to him, and that they are mentally mature enough to act on those desires. Where did I ever suggest anything of the sort? > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > And finally, that the laws to prevent such activity are like sexual Jim Crow laws to discriminate against a particular class of people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. And in a kind of perverted way, he’s technically correct. If murder became legal, murderers would indeed be law abiding citizens. > > He has no moral barriers to fucking a five year old. Even worse, be may see the act as a political as well as sexual one, a statement against the injustice of society. > > This is yet another one of thousands if times in my life I am glad not to have children. Once again, my moral barriers are best summed up by this: > [@](#): > > I’m going to be honest. I’m a pedophile. If I could be assured that it could be done safely, I’d be interested in having sex with children. > > As the world is set up now, any such activity carries the risk of severe psychological trauma. This trauma is social in nature, stemming from the illegality of the practice, and the overall attitude of sex as something negative that hurts people rather than something positive people who care about one another share. > > Because of this, I feel it is irresponsible to potentially expose a child to the lifetime of social torture that would result from even a positive, mutually desired encounter. Yet, I feel that better still would be an end to this social stigma that treats children as subhuman and punishes them for exercising their rights to free self-determination. > [@NineToTheSky](#): > > What I find interesting is that this is the first thread (that I’m aware of) about sex and/or children and/or himself that he hasn’t posted in. > > I wonder why? I **have** a life outside this message board, you know. > [@Liberal](#): > > Sorry I’m late to the party, but I just wanted to agree in general with this. I do think it’s different ages for different people, but in general, a child who does not have the emotional development of an adult is incapable of giving meaningful consent. I agree with you completely. Hence the RMSC proposal I put forward. > [@Liberal](#): > > That’s why libertarianism forbids acting out pedophilia — because there is no meaningful consent. It is a coercion upon the child. This doesn’t follow from the former. There is no meaningful consent with those who lack that emotional development (assuming you actually have a meaningful definition for this term), but there is nothing that intrinsically prevents said emotional development from being present in a prepubescent. > [@Liberal](#): > > I don’t usually participate in these threads because my political philosophy is so germane to the issue, and people don’t like my political philosophy. But I hope I haven’t hijacked too much just to point out how the issue is viewed from my perspective. It seems a bit schizophrenic, to be honest, like you haven’t really thought it completely through. > [@mswas](#): > > I don’t know, I don’t buy that kind of logic. I am not a psychologist so I might be dead wrong, but I think we too often assume that something that we assume to be dead wrong and evil must come from some kind of past trauma. Maybe he really genuinely does think that it’s ok. > > I think more likely that emotionally on some level a pedo is like a child and as such do not see the gulf between them and a small child because they can relate to small children better than they can relate to adults. Unfortunately the pedophile has achieved their sexual prime so these sorts of intimate feelings are twisted by the desire for intimacy through sex. Doesn’t seem likely to me, but it’s not as though this is a falsable assertion anyway, so there’s nothing that will ever prove or disprove it. > [@elbows](#): > > I don’t think ‘he hasn’t acted on his urges’ is really accurate. He said, “he hasn’t abused anybody”, but his definition of abuse is likely a little different than ours. > > I think it’s very educational for all of us to take a hard look into the face of exactly how manipulative child molesters are. If this same smooth cleverness, equivocation etc were being projected at a child, really, what chance would they have? > > The issue that we should be fighting them on is that children, no children - ever, are capable of consent to sexual activity, period. Not the more mature ones, not gifted ones, not ones that have been groomed. So say all us, meaning society at large. Making up your own criteria don’t change any of that, it’s just a way of justifying the unjustifiable. And serves to make the pervert think that they at least have some standards. > > He is skeevy and perverse, to be sure. But he’s also smooth and well spoken, oily and hard to pin down. All you parents out there - Look, look hard. Where did you get that I wrote the RMSC requirements? They were actually written by a debate oponent of mine some time back. She argued that children were incapable of consent, and I asked her the question “why?” The answers she gave described a list of things that children lacked which she felt were important to the concept of meaningful, informed sexual consent. After that, and at her urging, I bundled those answers into a prototype of this proposal (which was later put through several stages of refinement on open forums). > [@LunaticFringette](#): > > Oh good grief. How can a pedophile possibly justify their position??? Do you know anything about child growth and development??? Child psychology??? Immerse yourself in that literature and then tell me that there’s any fucking way on this earth that the possiblity exists that a pedophile could have a valid argument. Got any specific litterature in mind? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If somebody tells you they want to burn a toddler’s eye out with a cigarette, do any of you feel that it would be unfair not to hear him out and explain his reasoning (his reasoning being that it will make him come), or would you feel comfortable with just going ahead and deciding that it’s wrong to burn a toddler’s eye out with a cigarette? > > Why does a person trying to argue for the right to _rape_ toddlers deserve a second of floor time? You hear the argument, and if it isn’t compelling, **then** you reject it. It’s really as simple as that. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m only talking about what’s needed to know to judge the _morality_ of it. Have you heard enough to decide whether you think it’s morally acceptable or not, or do you think you still need to hear a little more? It’s not that complicated. You come to the best conclusion you can at any given time based on the information you have avalible, but you remain open to information that might change that conclusion. > [@Marley23](#): > > What ways are you going to learn to identify pedophiles based on his posts? ‘People who weasel out of arguments are sometimes pedophiles?’ That wouldn’t be very helpful. Any particular argument you feel I haven’t adequitely addressed? Or are you just looking to score points? > [@Marley23](#): > > I didn’t appeal to ‘everyone knows.’ I stated something very, very obvious: people don’t usually reason themselves into their actions. They choose what to do and then rationalize it later. Hm, by that logic, I didn’t reason my way to not fucking kids. I decided not to fuck kids, and then constructed an elaborate justification for why it wasn’t moral, which I was forced to restructure every time my justifications proved insufficient. Yes, that seems about right. Doesn’t mean my mind couldn’t be changed on the subject. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It’s logical to assume that **Cesario** currently has access to young children – heck, he’s already publicly admitted that he’s in the process of grooming a four-year-old girl. Now, it’s unclear whether or not this potential victim is a family member, or the child of a neighbor, or just someone he met randomly on the street, but if he’s willing to confess that he’s actively seeking contact with that particular child, there are probably dozens that he _hasn’t_ told us about. I just love how you get from “I had a pleasant conversation” to “I’m going to rape her”. Do you have to train for this sort of mental acrobatics, or is it something that comes natural to you? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Can a 4 year old give consent? The kind of hedging and cheating of the line you’re talking about is lame-ass and pointless. **Cesario** wants to be allowed to fuck 4-year olds. > > Of course there’s no objective line between childhood and adulthood. That’s neither an an original nor an interesting observation. There still has to be a legal line, and at a certain point, there is no ambiguity at all. If you agree that toddlers should not drink alcohol and drive cars, then ypu agree that there is a meaningful distinction between childhood and adulthood, and the rest is just quibbling over where to draw a legal line. And if we disagree that there is any more need to prevent a toddler from driving a car than we would anyone else who couldn’t pass the drivers test? Fact is, as much as you want it to be true, there is no inherent need for an age line. Anywhere. Yes, you need some sort of line in certain circumstances, but there is no reason it has to be based on your zodiac sign. Take the driving example. We agree that there needs to be a line, but we have a test that can serve that function, so there’s no reason age has to enter into it. > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I suspect you won’t gain many “insights,” but then I also suspect that this interest of yours (and others here) is not nearly so noble as you would have us believe, based more on titillation and base attraction to the lurid than any real desire to “humanize” the subject. > > Not that there’s anything wrong with that; I read tabloidy shit and watch trash like COPS. But don’t present yourself as some kind of principled anthropologist when you really just want to hear all the sordid details of kiddy-fiddling, and see yet another opportunity to exert your reflexive contrarianism on yet another topic. > > ETA: Oh, and welcome back. Would that be your motivation, perhaps? The same thing that draws people to watch the legal child porn that is Law and Order: SVU and Dateline: To Catch a Predator? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/235 "2009-10-01T07:24:44Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Sometimes I think people are merely pointing out the flaws in your comparison, not the actual subject. > > I actually think that pedophilia is similar to an obsessive disorder. These people actually can’t think about anything other than their “sexuality.” At least, not without psychological help. So it makes sense that it would come up in conversation a lot. Eh, I see it as making up for lost time spent in the proverbial closet, biting my tongue. As to your obsession “theory,” I do have other interests. Would you like to discuss the Elder Scrolls series of computer games? The Death Gate novels? Revive the circumcision debate? Argue about the relative chances of Church coming back as more than an Epsilon echo in Red vs Blue? How about a lively debate on the ethics of the choice Bruce Willis’ character makes at the end of Surrogates? > [@Muffin](#): > > I wonder if he gets any from trolling the internet. At least the minimum age of 13 here is above the ages that he would like to rape. > > Why again is he permitted to post here? You want to limit me to places populated by children in my age of attraction? :dubious: > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What’s that internet rule about how if you can think of it, there’s already porn for it? Rule 34. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > mswas…I do agree with you actually. I think that there’s not any one cause of pedophillia. I think it’s the “right combonation” that causes pedophillia. > Like, Aspie like behavoirs (being totally clueless about social protioal) almost sociopathic thinking that it’s OK/ not knowing that it’s wrong, and an OCD style obession. Remeember that dude who they thought might be connected to the Jon Benet Ramsey case? > Remember how he was OBESSED with the case? I also got a very “creepy” vibe from him. \*\*It does seem like a lot of “oreinated pedos” exude this really creepy vibe, that’s almost like how you can tell that some obiviously crazy people are indeed crazy. \*\* > As for a cure…I dunno…And you know…I just thought of something! Pedos have used the justification of " oh I can’t change it" as “proof” its a legit orietnation…BUT hell we can’t even cure a lot of behavoiral issues. Shouldn’t that have made the people I am around on a regular basis nervious? Incliding the aforementioned mother and brother of that attractive four year old I spent nearly an hour conversing with the other day? ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/236 "2009-10-01T09:16:51Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Been through several “non” boards before this one, and really just don’t have any problem speaking openly anymore, regardless of the hostility and/or veiled threats. I can imagine how that went down…mainly because of your attitude problem, whether or not you admitted to them that you like to fuck little girls. > [@Cesario](#): > > I just love how you get from “I had a pleasant conversation” to “I’m going to rape her”. Well I can’t speak for you, but I know that whenever I’m chatting up a woman who I find sexually attractive, I’m first and foremost thinking of ways to get her into the sack. The difference is, unlike you, that I can have a meaningful relationship with her, if both of us so choose. Nor do I have to worry about her father kicking my ass if he discovers that I’m thinking about fucking her, even if I choose NOT to fuck her. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/237 "2009-10-01T10:23:12Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > I can imagine how that went down…mainly because of your attitude problem, whether or not you admitted to them that you like to fuck little girls. “Would like to fuck” - there is a difference. > [@](#): > > Well I can’t speak for you, but I know that whenever I’m chatting up a woman who I find sexually attractive, I’m first and foremost thinking of ways to get her into the sack. Not everyone is always thinking with their gonads. Dang, while I don’t think I’ll ever agree with his feelings on under-teens being able to give meaningful consent, I must admit I’m leaning to taking **Cesario** ’s side (in this pitting). Some of the rest of you are just coming off as asses or bullies. And I say this as the father of a 5 y.o. ---
**Author:** ![Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uosdwis_R.Dewoh)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/238 "2009-10-01T10:24:42Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Serious anecdote. The combine thing happened to an old-timer who works a farm across from us about two years ago. :eek: I was making a joke about a scene in _The Naked Gun 2 1/2_ where Frank Drebin tries to comfort Nordberg’s wife by describing bizarre ways he’d wish to die. One was that he’d have his nuts bitten of by a Laplander, and another was the combine. Sorry to hear about your acquaintance. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/239 "2009-10-01T13:18:15Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I suspect you won’t gain many “insights,” but then I also suspect that this interest of yours (and others here) is not nearly so noble as you would have us believe, based more on titillation and base attraction to the lurid than any real desire to “humanize” the subject. Nobility has nothing to do with it. He’s a human being with the right to express himself and I am a human being with the right to be interested. Using the word ‘noble’ is just a crass attempt at trying to make it sound shameful, another effort at social control. > [@](#): > > Not that there’s anything wrong with that; I read tabloidy shit and watch trash like COPS. But don’t present yourself as some kind of principled anthropologist when you really just want to hear all the sordid details of kiddy-fiddling, and see yet another opportunity to exert your reflexive contrarianism on yet another topic. Who is presenting anything as anything? I am interested and I think he has the right to speak. Actually, what you call ‘reflexive contrarian’ you might notice that I defend the views of the unpopular side in a lot of cases, not just this one. If you need to diminish my views that way, by all means, but there is a sound reason why I defend these things and I can articulate it to a receptive audience. I think open dialogue has an intrinsic value. > [@](#): > > ETA: Oh, and welcome back. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/240 "2009-10-01T13:22:52Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Dude, I’m guessing said friend was full of shit – especially about the last one. He “addmitted this” while on coke and booze. I don’t think he sounds all that reliable. Thanks for your expert testimony. In Vino Veritas. > [@](#): > > I suspect these “noble intentions” of yours are about the same as your fifty different threads about Chappaquidick. There was only one that got shut and reopened several times. If it hadn’t been for the knee-jerking of the mods, it would’ve been confined to a single thread. And yes the intentions are the same. I never used the word ‘noble’ that’s just your puerile attempt to try and twist this, trying to make it sound like there is something wrong with the fact that I am interested in topics that you don’t want me to talk about. > [@](#): > > Dude is creepy, yes – and fascinating. I don’t think anyone here is going to deny that. It’s like a five train pile-up. But it’s not about “learning what makes a pedophile tick.” I already know what makes them tick – and I’ve seen this kind of crap before (the whole crap about “youth rights.”). In his case, I suspect it’s just a convenient cause he’s latched onto, because it fits his agenda. It doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe in it – but I can see WHY he’s interested in it. You already know what makes a pedophile tick? Riiight. I am not a very strong believer in the, “I already know everything I need to know.”, excuse for speaking from irrational revulsion and trying to justify it rationally. > [@](#): > > Just like I can see what makes NAMBLA believe what they believe. It’s not a big shock. You mean just like you can project your biases onto NAMBLA until you come up with an answer that satisfies you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=13)