# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/301 "2009-10-03T01:06:36Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > He has stated he is _also_ attracted to adults. At this point he could announce a desire to fuck hatstands and centipedes and I wouldn’t blink. I’m guessing though that most women wouldn’t be so keen on him once they found out his true desires. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/302 "2009-10-03T02:28:59Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > He has stated he is _also_ attracted to adults. At this point he could announce a desire to fuck hatstands and centipedes and I wouldn’t blink. Only if he did them at the same time. This thread has dismayed me in more ways than I care to relate here. Kids can be sexual-with themselves. Or they act out a type of sexuality by (in our society), “playing doctor”–with other KIDS. I agree with the poster who said that mostly kids are sensual–they are so open to their bodies and busy exploring it and the world around them. To deliberately bring adult sexuality and its myriad needs and oddities into this is wrong. I don’t care if it’s acted on or no–it’s wrong. To describe 10 year olds as “hot” is the mark of a disturbed individual. I say this as a mother who fell in love with the beauty of her own children’s bodies. I did not want to have sex with any of them–I saw their well formed shapes and healthiness as an example of nature’s gift: something to be celebrated, not exploited. To then say that you are giving the child the gift of your sexuality, _for their pleasure,_ is evil. I seem to drag this into every sex thread here, so why should this one be any different? Yes, sex feels great. Yes, it makes the world go away for a few minutes. So? WHY is it the be all and end all for so many people? I just don’t get it. Where is it written, except in the oh so persuasive psyche of one’s own self, that pleasure is paramount? Is there not a functioning intellect present? Where is the voice of reason within **Cesario’s** own head? Who in hell is driving his bus? I read the arrogance; it’s palpable off the page. **Cesario** will brook no rebuttal, allow no possibility that his “desires” are not only taboo, but are taboo for good reasons. He is so sure he could never be caught etc. And then he is surprised when we say we don’t trust him around a 4 year old girl? His whole attitude is one of bringing enlightenment to the misguided masses(including his target group–kids), not someone who is disturbed by the power he might have over smaller, vulnerable people if he ever indulged himself(and I don’t doubt that he has at some point). The sad thing is that I know he is hardly alone in both his arrogance and his preferences. I don’t ascribe to the “they must have had horrid trauma in their lives to be such people now” school for pedophiles/molesters. I ascribe to the school of “they want their orgasm more than they are concerned for the kid” school. Sexual behavior (I refer to behaviors, not gender preferences) is learned and I disagree with those who say that “well, shit, you’re just wired that way. I guess you’ll just have to find a way to have sex with hatracks and centipedes–because your pleasure is just that important.” What is learned can be unlearned (to some extent). Hell, one could at least try to change. This whole molesters aren’t pedophiles and vice versa position is so many split hairs: a rapist may have a thing for brunettes; just because he does, doesn’t make it any less rape. What **Cesario** is saying, so many times and in so many different ways, is that his pleasure is paramount. His position is undermined by his own posts. At one point he says (in rebuttal to someone) that aren’t we aware that the fully grown vagina is capable of expanding to allow passage of the human head? Yes, that is true–an infant’s head and a fully grown (mature) vagina. But the girls he wants to fuck don’t have fully grown vaginas; trauma to their genitalia is guaranteed. I won’t state the obvious re their emotional and psychological and spiritual trauma. And this: I am forever grateful for not being at the mercy of 6-8 inches of flesh and a few minutes of pleasure. I swear this place is giving me the most messed up view of male sexuality. Between “I must have porn or will die!\*” and stuff like this, I would almost be relieved to become completely celibate, but that’s another thread… \*my small point here is that for many, many years most people lived w/o porn and managed to eke out their own small miserable existences just fine. Now we have porn and small miserable existences. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Claude\_Remains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Claude\_Remains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claude_Remains)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/303 "2009-10-03T03:05:36Z")
Not sure where **cesario** is from but for the sake of argument let us say that perhaps the average child is very mature in contrast to his world view. Maybee he looks up to toddlers as mature women. I can picture a 5-7 y.o. wetting a kleenex with saliva and wiping his face in a Mothering nature. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/304 "2009-10-03T03:26:28Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I also want a light saber… > Well, not really. A personal jetpack or hoverboard would be nice, though. It’s not the future yet. So no hoverboards. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/305 "2009-10-03T03:55:52Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > This whole molesters aren’t pedophiles and vice versa position is so many split hairs: a rapist may have a thing for brunettes; just because he does, doesn’t make it any less rape. Funny, I thought raping was what made him a rapist. ---
**Author:** ![LunaticFringette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/fbc32d/32.png) [@LunaticFringette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LunaticFringette)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/306 "2009-10-03T04:01:27Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Quote:Originally Posted by 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. > > Rind et al is certaintly not without it’s share of controversy but it’s a mistake to say that the literature is consistent in backing up your position.[Rind et al](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9670820) is certaintly not without it’s share of controversy but it’s a mistake to say that the literature is consistent in backing up your position. No where in that post did I say that the literature is consistent in backing my position. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/307 "2009-10-03T06:17:46Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > [Rind et al](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9670820) is certaintly not without it’s share of controversy but it’s a mistake to say that the literature is consistent in backing up your position. Pedophiles love to cite The Rind Report as evidence supporting their agenda. What they fail to realize is that The Rind Report was an inherently flawed study which covered a population sample far too small to be applied to the population at large (for example, the study only included college students, thereby eliminating sex abuse victims who were so badly traumatized that they never managed to attend college.) It also failed to properly define child sexual abuse in any meaningful fashion (a 14yo having sex with a 21yo cannot reasonably be compared to a 4yo raped by his/her uncle) and it did not take into consideration the tendency of adults to look back on their past with rose-colored glasses, rationalizing childhood events as “no big deal” whether or not they were traumatized at the time. However, even if we were to take The Rind Report at face value, the study _still_ concludes that 1/3 of all child sex abuse survivors _were harmed by the abuse!_ So basically, you have a bunch of people claiming it’s okay to fuck children even though it’s equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with two bullets in the chamber. If a new drug was discovered to cause serious, irreparable harm to 1 in 3 people, it would be taken off the market right away. ---
**Author:** ![Claude\_Remains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Claude\_Remains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claude_Remains)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/308 "2009-10-03T06:40:15Z")
Bruce? are you fucking kidding me? Every pickle puffin poopy poker in the world is named bruce. Bruce Rind, that’s fuckin funny. But has there ever been a guy named bruce who would like to have sex with little girls? I want a cite that can show me a guy named bruce who has been busted trying to fuck little girls. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/309 "2009-10-03T08:21:14Z")
> [@](#): > > but seriously, how would any child under the age of 10 be capable of informed consent or enthusiastically interested in having sex? You are attempting to defend the impossible here. Exactly!!! Even many if not most young teens would feel flattered if an older man/woman hit on them, and they’d be open to being manipulated. > [@](#): > > I ascribe to the school of “they want their orgasm more than they are concerned for the kid” school. Sexual behavior (I refer to behaviors, not gender preferences) is learned and I disagree with those who say that “well, shit, you’re just wired that way. I guess you’ll just have to find a way to have sex with hatracks and centipedes–because your pleasure is just that important.” What is learned can be unlearned (to some extent). Hell, one could at least try to change. Elenorerigby…RIGHT ON!!! Pedos and child molesters are SO self centered and have such distorted thinking that it’s not about the child. It’s ALL about THEM and their OWN pleasure. Maybe treat the self centeredness somehow and then maybe they would realize that pedophillia is fucked up > [@](#): > > won’t state the obvious re their emotional and psychological and spiritual trauma YES!!! I remember when I lurked at the pedo messageboards, there’d be a lot of pedos going " I was molested and I turned out JUST fine." Ummmm you turned out to be a pedophile. I dont think that counts as not being fucked up. Oh…and I know people who were molested/raped as teens…and trust me it fucked THEM up. Even thou it was " consentual" " “a relationship” it STILL fucked with them MAJORLY. Virtually ALL pedos and child molesters are PREDATORS. They are so self centered and SO filled with themselves that they feel the need to attack someone who cannot and does not understnad about sex (or relationships) at ALL! ---
**Author:** ![ming\_the\_merciless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@ming\_the\_merciless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ming_the_merciless)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/310 "2009-10-03T08:43:50Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > YES!!! I remember when I lurked at the pedo messageboards :dubious: Why? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/311 "2009-10-03T08:55:58Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Pedophiles love to cite The Rind Report as evidence supporting their agenda. What they fail to realize is that The Rind Report was an inherently flawed study which covered a population sample far too small to be applied to the population at large (for example, the study only included college students, thereby eliminating sex abuse victims who were so badly traumatized that they never managed to attend college.) It also failed to properly define child sexual abuse in any meaningful fashion (a 14yo having sex with a 21yo cannot reasonably be compared to a 4yo raped by his/her uncle) and it did not take into consideration the tendency of adults to look back on their past with rose-colored glasses, rationalizing childhood events as “no big deal” whether or not they were traumatized at the time. I don’t appreciate the trend of reflexively poisoning the well whenever a controversial paper is presented. Yes, pedophiles love to cite this paper, so do people who support sound scientific discourse, including the APA who have defended it repeatedly. All of your criticisms are addressed in the actual paper and yet they are made by those who mindlessly parrot it without bothing to critically engage with it. > [@](#): > > A possible shortcoming of focusing on the college population is that college students may be too young for symptoms to have appeared, or they may be better able to cope with CSA stresses than persons in other populations ( Jumper, 1995 ). However, younger and older adults did not differ in CSA-adjustment relations > in Neumann et al.'s (1996) meta-analysis. Furthermore, mean effect sizes from college samples, as reported by Jumper, were similar to those from national samples (Rind & Tromovitch, 1997 ), nonclinical samples ( Neumann et al., 1996 ), and community samples ( Jumper, 1995 , after corrections). Therefore, the argument > that college students are better able to cope and thus present fewer adverse reactions than people in other nonclinical populations lacks empirical support. > [@](#): > > An important first step is to discuss terminology. The term child sexual abuse has been used in the > psychological literature to describe virtually all sexual interactions between children or adolescents and > significantly older persons, as well as between same-age children or adolescents when coercion is involved. > The indiscriminate use of this term and related terms such as victim and perpetrator has been criticized because > of concerns about scientific validity (e.g., Kilpatrick, 1987 ; Nelson, 1989 ; Okami, 1990 ; Rind & Bauserman, > 1993 ). [… much relevant information cut for length reasons …] Problems of scientific validity of the term CSA are perhaps most apparent when contrasting cases such as the > repeated rape of a 5-year-old girl by her father and the willing sexual involvement of a mature 15-year-old > adolescent boy with an unrelated adult. > > […] > > With these caveats in mind regarding the scientific shortcomings of the term CSA, we have nevertheless > retained it for use in the current article because of its pervasive use in the scientific literature and because > many researchers as well as lay persons view all types of sociolegally defined CSA as harmful. On the basis of > the terminology used in studies reviewed in the current article, CSA is generally defined as a sexual > interaction involving either physical contact or no contact (e.g., exhibitionism) between either a child or > adolescent and someone significantly older, or between two peers who are children or adolescents when > coercion is used. The rose coloured glasses thing Rind does not specifically address but it’s also kind of a bizarre criticism. As a child, I hated performing in the school play with an intense passion but, looking back on it, it’s “no big deal”. Isn’t something that’s no big deal now by definition, now harmless? > [@](#): > > However, even if we were to take The Rind Report at face value, the study _still_ concludes that 1/3 of all child sex abuse survivors _were harmed by the abuse!_ So basically, you have a bunch of people claiming it’s okay to fuck children even though it’s equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with two bullets in the chamber. If a new drug was discovered to cause serious, irreparable harm to 1 in 3 people, it would be taken off the market right away. > [@](#): > > mean retrospectively recalled immediate reactions based on a 7-point scale (1 = very positive; 7 = very negative ). > The mean rating for men was 3.38, indicating a neutral to somewhat positive overall reaction, and the mean > rating for women was 5.83, indicating an overall negative reaction > > […] > > Results were similar to retrospectively recalled immediate > reactions, with 59% of 514 female experiences being reported as negative compared with 26% of 118 male > experiences. Conversely, 42% of current reflections of male experiences, but only 16% of female experiences, > were reported as positive. Only citing negative without citing positives is unfairly representing the paper. You could certainly mount a convincing case for women being harmed but the data for men is much more ambivalent. At the same time, even if you accept the argument that CSA is harmful: > [@](#): > > In terms of variance accounted for, family > environment outperformed CSA in explaining symptoms by a factor of 9. These results imply that, in the > college population, family environment is a more important predictor of symptoms than is CSA Does that mean, in order to be consistent, you should be 9 times more horrified about poor family conditions than being abused? Rind et al was very clear in their paper and subsequent discussions that they were not advocating for or in favor of legalizing child sex. What they were specifically addressing was the belief that all child sex was automatically child sex abuse and carried universal, significant harm. I’m not saying that Rind et al is without flaws or advocating for their position, I’m simply putting it out there as a piece of science which should be criticized with the respect any paper should deserve instead of sloppy, baseless attacks which don’t even both engaging with the material. I have no stake in this particular debate, I don’t particularly care either way about child sex. But what I do find appalling is the complete breakdown of reason and civil discourse from the anti-child sex faction. The dope is meant to be about using reason and skepticism to fight ignorance but the level of argument in this thread has been ridiculously poor. If you went and replaced child sex with evolution in each of these posts, this wouldn’t look out of place on a creationist website. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/312 "2009-10-03T15:49:59Z")
[QUOTE=eleanorigby] This whole molesters aren’t pedophiles and vice versa position is so many split hairs: a rapist may have a thing for brunettes; just because he does, doesn’t make it any less rape. [/QUOTE] > [@Ludovic](#): > > Funny, I thought raping was what made him a rapist. Which is exactly my point. What is yours? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/313 "2009-10-04T01:09:01Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Pedophiles love to cite The Rind Report as evidence supporting their agenda. What they fail to realize is that The Rind Report was an inherently flawed study which covered a population sample far too small to be applied to the population at large (for example, the study only included college students, thereby eliminating sex abuse victims who were so badly traumatized that they never managed to attend college.) It also failed to properly define child sexual abuse in any meaningful fashion (a 14yo having sex with a 21yo cannot reasonably be compared to a 4yo raped by his/her uncle) and it did not take into consideration the tendency of adults to look back on their past with rose-colored glasses, rationalizing childhood events as “no big deal” whether or not they were traumatized at the time. > > However, even if we were to take The Rind Report at face value, the study _still_ concludes that 1/3 of all child sex abuse survivors _were harmed by the abuse!_ So basically, you have a bunch of people claiming it’s okay to fuck children even though it’s equivalent to playing Russian Roulette with two bullets in the chamber. If a new drug was discovered to cause serious, irreparable harm to 1 in 3 people, it would be taken off the market right away. You just pwned em all I think. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/314 "2009-10-04T01:25:56Z")
I don’t understand why this pitting is neccessary. He should have been banned already, and I’m not one who generally calls for a banning. His participation on this board will attract both sympathy and antipathy and the danger is he’ll use the sympathy to overcome any inhibition he presently professes. There is a responsibility on the part of the staff here to ensure that it doesn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/315 "2009-10-04T01:35:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I also want a light saber… > Well, not really. A personal jetpack or hoverboard would be nice, though. Why can’t I have all three? Or at least the lightsaber and the jetpack? Boba Fett had a jetpack. Screw the hoverboard, though. I’d rather have an X-Wing. On topic? Jesus, right now I’m watching the Penguins game and feeling slightly guilty for thinking Sidney Crosby – nine years my junior – is sexy. [sub]Dammit, Pens, get off your asses![/sub] I don’t know if this guy is a troll – but having read the justifications that pedos keep giving, and the whole crap that comes from NAMBLA, well, then he’s certainly doing a good job of it. (Although the whole, “sexy five-year-old” definitely seems to be pushing it.) So even if he’s a troll – there are certainly people out there like that. ---
**Author:** ![supergoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@supergoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supergoose)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/316 "2009-10-04T02:37:20Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > He should have been banned already, and I’m not one who generally calls for a banning. > > His participation on this board will attract both sympathy and antipathy and the danger is he’ll use the sympathy to overcome any inhibition he presently professes. > > There is a responsibility on the part of the staff here to ensure that it doesn’t happen. Wouldn’t sympathy just reinforce the fact that it’s wrong? If people were coming in here and saying “eh, no big deal, don’t worry about it,” \*that \*I could see leading to him overcoming his inhibition. Honestly, I think a lot of people here are overreacting. Going by what he has written (which is all anyone has to go on, at this point), he recognizes that his attraction is something he can’t act on, hasn’t acted on, and won’t act on, assuming societal opinions on the ability of young children to consent to sex will remain unchanged during his lifetime (which I have no doubt they will, given that the vast majority of the rest of us recognize that children are simply not capable of that). I agree that his inability to see that fact of childhood psychology/whatever the proper term is and his obsession with it as part of “youth rights” is somewhat disturbing, but he can argue himself blue in the face and still won’t manage to change reality. And the more he posts about it on a board that doesn’t condone pedophilia, the more feedback he’ll get emphasizing that any sexual interaction with children is absolutely wrong. How is that not a good thing? The topic may make you understandably squicked out and outraged, but that’s what the ignore function is for. And for the record, I would be willing to date a pedophile, provided that he/she recognized how wrong and damaging sexual interaction with children is and was vigilant in preventing any behavior that crossed the line. To be honest, the main reason I wouldn’t date \*\*Cesario \*\*specifically is because of his fixation on and resentment about all this. So **Cesario** , here’s my advice to you: you need to accept that you will never be able to act on your sexual attraction to children and start training yourself away from this focus on pedophilia. I honestly think this is the only way you’re going to be able to be happy. This resentment and obsession is only going to make you unhappy and frustrated, at the very least, and it probably spills over into and poisons other areas of your life as well. This is what I would do: I believe that to a certain extent, you choose your thought pattern by indulging in it and reinforcing it (I think of it like a stream of water. The longer the water flows over a certain area, the deeper a channel it carves in it and the harder it becomes to divert it. Small creek vs Grand Canyon, for example.) You’re lucky to have a secondary attraction to adult women. If it was me, whenever I had a thought regarding finding a child attractive, I’d consciously let it go and focus on something else, preferably an adult woman in the vicinity that I’m sexually attracted to. Stop with the pedophilia-friendly message boards and any sexual fantasies you indulge in that involve children. Change the fantasies so they include only adult women instead, and so on. Yeah, it’s not wrong to have thoughts that involve sexual attraction to children, but it’s not doing you any favors either and never will. So why \*not \*try to change your thought pattern? I don’t know if it’s possible, but it wouldn’t surprise me if you wound up being able to make your attraction to adult women stronger than your attraction to children. And no, there’s no reason you \*have \*to, and no, it’s not particularly fair that you should have to, but I truly believe it’s in your best interest. And before you say that I can’t possibly have any idea what I’m talking about, as it happens, I’m bisexual. My attraction to men is generally about twice as strong as my attraction to women. But I go through brief periods when my attraction to women is far stronger just because my current favorite fantasies involves women instead of men. I have no doubt I could sustain that (or the opposite) permanently if I had to. You can change your feelings and thoughts to a surprising extent by changing your focus/perspective and what you allow yourself to dwell on mentally. So anyway. I just felt the need to come in and say all that. ---
**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 4, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/317 "2009-10-04T02:52:12Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > At this point he could announce a desire to fuck hatstands and centipedes and I wouldn’t blink. Being a leg man, I fully understand an attraction to 'pedes. You might even say I’m a pede-phile! Anyway, my real hesitation about getting a light-saber is knowing that eventually I’d accidentally pick it up by the wrong end. Or at least try to. ---
**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:** [October 4, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/318 "2009-10-04T03:21:51Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > I don’t understand why this pitting is neccessary. > > He should have been banned already, and I’m not one who generally calls for a banning. > > His participation on this board will attract both sympathy and antipathy and the danger is he’ll use the sympathy to overcome any inhibition he presently professes. > > There is a responsibility on the part of the staff here to ensure that it doesn’t happen. The ATMB tread requesting his banning was immediately closed, and the email sent to Ed was not received because the email address in Ed’s profile does not work. ---
**Author:** ![MoodIndigo1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@MoodIndigo1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MoodIndigo1)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/319 "2009-10-04T03:57:30Z")
So far as we can tell, he’s not doing anything illegal. If he is a troll or sock puppet, then he should go-- board rules have priority. But if it’s just a question of his exerting his right to free speech, I guess there’s no reason to ban him. He’s not confessing to criminal acts nor is he attempting to convince any of us to break the law, so… I’m late to this thread and I confess I haven’t read the whole thing, and I find his stance distasteful, to say the least, but he has the right to it. Anyone who wants to interact with him is welcome to do so. As a few people have pointed out, there is an “ignore” function for those who think there’s no point discussing with someone who doesn’t really want discussion, only wants an odd form of vindication-- and perhaps is titillated by the attention of an anonymous bunch of people on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/320 "2009-10-04T03:59:45Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > The ATMB tread requesting his banning was immediately closed, and the email sent to Ed was not received because the email address in Ed’s profile does not work. Ed does not give a fuck about this message board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=17)