# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/341 "2009-10-05T01:27:08Z")
I thought the #1 board rule was “Don’t be a jerk.” Advocating for legalized kiddie-fucking and going on lengthy rambles about how great it would be if you could fuck toddlers and posting about “attractive 4-year-olds” of your acquaintance seems pretty damn jerkish to me. ---
**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:** [October 5, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/342 "2009-10-05T01:27:32Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Whing about wanting the fucking of infants and young children to be legal is in reality promoting the fucking of infants and children. True, but it is promoting doing it in a legal manner, and so falls outside of the bright line mandate. It’s fairly easy to obfuscate that rule successfully. I don’t know why you guys seem so surprised. Lots of people love doing this sort of thing. For example, if you connect the dots in GD, you’ll see that personal insults fly around the time in there. All you have to do is figure out something that means something to the poster and then redirect all the insults you want to say to them to that subject. Extra points if it was revealed in a previous thread, so no one else will notice.. Sorry. It seems too many of my posts degrade into my hatred of GD. What’s sad is I keep reading threads, hoping it will be different. My concern is that, if it is allowed, it becomes a very easy way to troll, as we’ve now seen how viscerally many posters will react to it. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/343 "2009-10-05T02:01:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Obviously, you have found yourself quite capable of snide remarks, regardless whether I am posting in an official capacity, or not, so I have no idea why you suddenly decided to post one more time to make that an issue. Because I have NOT made snide remarks to you, due to an uncertainty as to whether you are posting in your personal or mod capacity, and I again request that you clarify on what footing you are acting. Is there some reason you refuse to make that explicit? Are you modding, or not? > [@](#): > > I find you re-interpretations of what I posted amusing, but not pertinent. Huh. There’s no “re-interpretation” necessary. This is what you said initially, that I took issue with (direct quote, not “re-interpretation”): > [@YOU](#): > > If you can point to a post where **he actually promotes such behavior** , rather than whining that he would like it to be legal to do so, the staff will have a different reaction. No discussion of advocating breaking the law, or promoting breaking the law, just “promot[ing] such behavior.” Arguing in favor of legalizing or de-criminalizing behavior so you yourself, personally, can engage in it, is pretty much the definition of “promoting such behavior.” And this is what you are NOW saying, again direct quotes with no “re-interpretation”: > [@YOU](#): > > On numerous occasions over the last ten years, the principle has been set forth that any topic was permitted for discussion as long as it did not directly **promote the breaking of laws or directly cause harm to another**. > [@YOU](#): > > Cesario has not advocated **breaking the law**. . . Thus, what you are now saying – anything short of directly advocating breaking the law or directly causing harm to another is probably okay – is NOT what you were saying before, which was, verbatim, that “promoting the behavior” would elicit a “different reaction” from the mods. Perhaps you don’t see the pertinence of “before you were saying ‘A’” and now you’re saying ‘B,’" but then, even if you can’t grasp that, at least I’m “amusing,” right? As your posts since have abundantly shown, merely promoting the behavior would NOT elicit a different reaction from the mods, because his every single post promotes the behavior, yet mod reaction – your reaction – doesn’t change, it’s still “none.” Which, funnily enough, is what I said in the first place, in the post that you chose to take such instant offense to. But why bother with being offended, when you’ve demonstrated that I was completely right? He _has_ broken Board rules, the first and foremost of which is “don’t be a jerk.” And ignoring him _isn’t_ the best way to silence him, it’s just the easiest for you because it allows you to do nothing. ---
**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 5, 2009, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/344 "2009-10-05T02:08:44Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And the rule that he has broken is? Are you constrained by the rule of law ? We’ve already established that the SDMB is not a democracy. Some fucking common sense on your part would be most welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/345 "2009-10-05T02:19:21Z")
And another thing: If in fact Ed is trying to sell the SDMB, or even if there are in fact corporate masters above us all who are even remotely interested in what goes on here, someone with more perspective than you, **Tom** , are currently showing needs to take a fresh eye at the advisibilty of allowing this type of extremely inappropriate topic. Heck, you, **Tom** can’t even read the mild criticism I initially posted without immediately lashing out about how you were “mistaken in the belief I was actually a lawyer.” (WTF?) How can you be expected to take a neutral and objective look at this issue if even THAT post makes you feel personally attacked? You can’t. Someone else needs to review the thread and consider what action to take regarding it, and you should ask someone else to do so. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/346 "2009-10-05T02:23:54Z")
Yeah, FTR that lawyer crack from **tomndebb** seemed really inappropriate and uncalled for to me as well. ---
**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 5, 2009, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/347 "2009-10-05T02:52:49Z")
Okay, may I just post to say that **Jodi** is my new hero? ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/348 "2009-10-05T03:25:17Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Okay, may I just post to say that **Jodi** is my new hero? Let’s start a fan club. I am slack jawed at **tom’s** responses here. If I were a possible investor of any kind in SD or SDMB, posters like **Cesario** would change my mind mighty quick. Me, I’m tired of threads like this going off the rails, a mod (any mod) weighing in without really considering just what they might be defending or \*ipso facto \*sanctioning by condoning. No doubt Part 2 will start soon enough when the thread is closed and mods have a group think to reconsider the actions taken and then an apology or something akin to one will be issued and we’re all supposed to get on with playing in the sandbox again. This isn’t some “alternative lifestyle” choice between consenting adults. This is about _having sex with children_–about a poster not only proclaiming to all and sundry that he thinks kids are “hot”, but bragging that he could get away with having sex with them, if he so chooses. And this gets a pass by the mods here in the interest of what exactly? Fair play? “Tolerance”? Open-mindedness? To paraphrase Jim Welch: Where is the sense of decency? ---
**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 5, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/349 "2009-10-05T04:53:57Z")
Joe Welch, dear. 😉 Yep, we can endorse kiddy fucking, but we can’t say fuck you, kid. Lovely. ---
**Author:** ![supergoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@supergoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supergoose)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/350 "2009-10-05T04:57:05Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Arguing in favor of legalizing or de-criminalizing behavior so you yourself, personally, can engage in it, is pretty much the definition of “promoting such behavior.” I’m having a bit of trouble working this out in my mind, namely the part about advocating changing the law being akin to advocating breaking the current law or promoting behavior that is currently against the law. On the one hand, you’re right in terms of that being his motivation. On the other hand, is there really no difference between expressing such an opinion and actually stating specifically that people should break the law/actively encouraging people to do so? My question is, really, would you then say that this exchange is different? How so? Because **Diogenes the Cynic** never specifically said that the law should be changed? ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11137720&postcount=51](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11137720&postcount=51)) [QUOTE=supergoose] Look, I understand the anger and that everyone’s being hyperbolic, but I have to say, to threaten violence against the perpetrator of domestic violence is pretty hypocritical. Isn’t the point supposed to be that no one deserves to be physically hurt, not that some people deserve it sometimes depending on what they’ve done? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s the latter. Some people deserve it. Wife beaters, for example. … [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Wife beaters are scum. By all rights they should be publicly flogged, forced to surrender all material property to their victims, and prohibited from having any contact with their victims or with their children ever again. I don’t want to hear any lawyering about “proof.” The question is not about what wife beaters deserve, not what those who are accused deserve. [/QUOTE] (I’m sorry to pick on you, **Dio** , but this was the first example I could remember.) I’m sure there are many many examples in this board’s history in which a poster stated that they did not agree with a law and felt that it should be changed. Do you feel that all of those posters should be banned as well for advocating criminal behavior? Is the difference being when a poster expresses a desire to have the law changed specifically so that they could engage in the currently illegal activity? I’m pretty sure I could come up with examples of that, too. Should all those posters be banned as well? Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. I’ve been a member of your (and Muffin’s) fan clubs since long before this discussion, and I truly do value your input. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/352 "2009-10-05T05:40:50Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Because I have NOT made snide remarks to you, due to an uncertainty as to whether you are posting in your personal or mod capacity, and I again request that you clarify on what footing you are acting. Is there some reason you refuse to make that explicit? Are you modding, or not? ?? Right. Notning snide or sarcastic in this comment: > [@Jodi](#): > > Apparently “the staff” don’t recognize that arguing for the legalization of kiddie-fucking IS the promotion of kiddie-fucking, a point that is obvious to many. But apparently around here it’s okay to EXCUSE extreme pedophilia so long as one doesn’t go so far as to PROMOTE it – a hair-splitting distinction that is as ridiculous as it is distasteful. As to whether i am posting as a Moderator, I am presenting the current view of the staff that we have hammered out in off-board discussions, so perhaps I am. On the other hand, I am not posting directions regarding rules, so I am not posting in that sort of official capacity. If you are going to take a shot at me, I am not going to get upset over it; you’ll have to run it past Gfactor to see how he would view it. I realize that this is an emotional topic. Cesario has posted some truly disgusting stuff. However, we have had open racists and sexists, Holocaust deniers, and any number of other posters on this board without getting calls for their banishment just because their views are disgusting. We are using a fairly bright line distinction for what can actually be posted, here. I understand that cesario’s lusts are significiantly repulsive as to get folks to wish to simply set aside the normal rules of the place, but I see making that sort of exception as merely the sort of _ad hoc_ rules tampering for which we are lambasted (correctly or incorrectly) every time we do not make a judgment call that falls in one poster or another’s favor. ---
**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 5, 2009, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/353 "2009-10-05T05:52:35Z")
> [@supergoose](#): > > Is the difference being when a poster expresses a desire to have the law changed specifically so that they could engage in the currently illegal activity? I’m pretty sure I could come up with examples of that, too. Should all those posters be banned as well? It is a matter of degree. Discussing legalizing pot is one thing, discussing fucking infants and fucking young children is quite another. Where the line lies is debatable, and will always be changing. For myself, I find people who promote infant and young child fucking are so very far beyond that line that I have no difficulty what so ever in requesting that they be banned and be reported to the authorities. I see no reason why the SDMB should be used as a platform by a monster. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/354 "2009-10-05T06:12:16Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > You know…I wonder if pedos have some sort of co-morbid personality disorder that causes them to be blind to why sex with kids is wrong. Like an emotionally stunted, Asperger’s and manipulative personality disorder profile. > Ceserio…you keep yapping about how you think that kids WANT sex. When did I do that? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I remember reading a thread at one of the girllove sites going on about the dateline special on the bust in that village in Malaysia or Thailand, that’s notorious for having very underage girls. The poster was all " They WANT to have sex! Why is it so wrong? They were so upset being taken away from something they love and WANT to do! " (he sounded exactly like YOU) Ah, so this is about you ascribing to me comments that you had to go out onto the wider internet to find on some board I’ve never heard of? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > They don’t. You and other pedos ARE rapists in that way. Funny, I always assumed that not raping people exempted me from being a rapist. Silly me. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > You’re doing what many date rapists do…that is misunderstanding basic body language or what other people want. In what sense? Was there some specific instance of me misinterpreting body language you are reffering to? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > In the end it’s ALL about you (pedophiles) manipulating kids to get what you want. You don’t care about what the indivdual wants…It’s ALL about what YOU want. And since what I want is for them to have their actual capabilities acknowledge and respected… > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > .. Kids are still at the stage where they’re all " he he he he he" look at my weiner!!! > As a matter of fact, one common theme, that pedos are obessed with tends to be the innocence of kids. > If a kid is innocent…they don’t understand sex or the desire for it. How does that fit into things? No idea. Personally, I’ve never found ignorance to be particularly attractive. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Heck…I was a kid not that long ago…(I’m 30) and I don’t remember wanting to have sex with an adult. I was a KID…I wanted to play with Matchbox cars, and dolls. (and I was pretty advanced for my age) I remember quite clearly being upset at my status as human chattel and being denied my rights including suffrage. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > And a pedo’s attraction is 100% about sex and dominating a kid. It’s not about strong friendship or love. I just love how you speak for feelings you don’t actually have. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Someone can be madly crazy in love with someone and yet not have sexual feelings for them. (I’ve loved …like honestly loved people at college and at camp but not had sexual feelings for them) That’s true. What’s your point? > [@Isamu](#): > > It doesn’t matter. This is not a philosophical issue. > > I do not trust anyone who wants to have sex with 4-years olds. Even if they swear on their mother’s grave that they won’t do it, the fact that they _want_ to do it makes me not trust anything about them - at all. I sure as hell wouldn’t trust them to ‘be honest with me’ about any of their intentions. > > In any case, I think we are being trolled so I’m putting my outrage away in it’s box, for now. Since the only reason you even know I want to have sex with 4 year olds is because you’re taking me at my word, I’m not sure why you’re having trouble taking me at my word about my intentions. > [@Weedy](#): > > Do you think any such children do exist, or might possibly exist? How likely do you think it is that you would ever come across such a child? I do believe they exist, and that they might even be fairly common (well, at least meeting the first criteria, fully capable of informed consent). The whole point of the testing requirements is to find out for sure, and to make sure that no one, myself included, mistakes someone who can’t consent for someone who can, whether because of wishful thinking or social expectations tied to age or appearance. > [@Weedy](#): > > I had a look at your list of elements required for meaningful consent, and I don’t think any child under 10 could ever fulfil them. If there is a child, somewhere, that did, I would see them more as an adult in a child’s body. Is that what you effectively want - an adult’s consciousness in a pre-pubescent body? Yeah, pretty much. > [@mswas](#): > > We’re having a hard time believing in the hypothetical child that knows what sex is and wants to have it with you. Puberty is when a person develops sexually and begins to get sexual urges. Children younger than that are sensual but not sexual. Sex becomes a biological imperative at puberty, but all the nerve endings and such that make sex feel good are present at birth. Even without hormones screaming at people to fuck, people are still quite capable of desiring sexual stimulation, and of desiring partners to engage in it with them. > [@mswas](#): > > I will concede a fine point of distinction to you that will probably get people here angry at me, and that is that what we consider appropriate touch outside of penetration is kind of arbitrary. I don’t know what the psychological reaction to stimulation of genitals is like. But, you’re right society has put a hard limit on that, and regardless of whether there is some sort of primal trauma that could result there is definitely the trauma of social pressure. I’m glad to see we’ve found this common ground. > [@moonstarssun](#): > > Ooookay, I think I’m out. I’m being thoroughly creeped out by this thread, and **Cesario,** you’re not really saying anything I haven’t heard already (justification and rationalization). So, whatever. Enjoy believing that you’re right and that society is wrong. Talk loudly, publicly and often about how hot you find young children. You’ll be doing the world a favor if you become an advocate for this. Thank you for your support. > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m implicitly suggesting I don’t believe you. 😉 Still best that we make sure we’re both on the same page, don’t you agree? > [@Marley23](#): > > And yet, you go on… Yes, I do that. > [@Marley23](#): > > Yeah, and I’d like to skullfuck a unicorn. But only if they could consent to it - I’m not some kind of weirdo! Ah, you get it! Great. > [@Marley23](#): > > The informed consent thing is what you’re _supposed_ to say, but you’re not really committed to it. I think the problem with this disbelief is that you’re still assuming that age=informedness, which is so often pounded into the heads of pretty much everyone connected to our culture. > [@Marley23](#): > > In the post about the “very attractive four year old,” you were at least implying she was into you. No, I was implying she wasn’t creeped out by me and made uncomfortable by my presence as some people seemed to be assuming all children would be. > [@Marley23](#): > > Elsewhere, like **Shodan** said, you said you feel it’s your duty to violate an unjust law, and laws that keep you from screwing kids are unjust. I also proceeded to explain the hostage situation that prevents me from acting on that moral duty. > [@Marley23](#): > > I think the voting age should be lowered. I also think drinking ages should probably be eliminated and ages of consent should probably be lower. The thread was only about voting. Well then, we’ll be on the same side when the drinking debate comes up, but opponents in the other two areas. > [@Marley23](#): > > I did explain, but I don’t intend to continue arguing with you. There’s no point in talking to someone whose response to every argument is a version of ‘You are as bad as slaveowners because you won’t let me to fuck a preschooler.’ Your only explaination was “we have to have a line somewhere”, which doesn’t actually follow from anything about political theory. Still, it seems to me we’re better off continuing this debate in that thread. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to call B.S. on you Cesario. I do appreciate that you’ve apparently taken your name from the [Kiddy Grade Anime](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesario_(Kiddy_Grade)#Cesario) series (in the sense that you’ve apparently thought this out), I so loved the symbolism of that relationship. > [@Meatros](#): > > but I’m just not buying the idea that this persona is true. > > Whenever you discuss your personal desires, you seem to attempt to put forth the perfect scenario, 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. Once again, even if no such child exists, that doesn’t change the fact that I desire it. Again, think light sabers. > [@Meatros](#): > > You say you’ve posted on other boards of this and I’d like to see evidence of this. The reason why is because I believe you came to this message board with the sole desire to see if you could put up an argument in favor of what can only be viewed as the worst possible position imaginable. On Gaiaonline, I’ve been posting lately under the user name Demon of the 14th Shadow, though I’ve gone through a series of names there for various reasons that the regulars can tell you about. The RMSC was developed there while I was using the account Iron Sole. On NationStates, I’ve operated under the alias The Five Castes, though that was some time ago. I actually joined that one because a child-sex advocate there was being a jackass, and he was advocating clearly dangerous, illegal behaviors, and I was upset that his poor behavior was reflecting badly on the rest of us. The last time I was on Girlchat, I used the name Magneto. Any other silly questions? > [@Meatros](#): > > You seem quick to weed through irrelevant posts and attacks on the hypothetical character - but your comparisons to other cultural acts (slavery and such) seem quite weak. Probably because you’re not too clear on what the comparisons are to. > [@Meatros](#): > > You mention several times something to the effect of the belief that if you were arrested for sex with a minor you are confident in your ability not to serve jailtime. > > Why would you be able to avoid the criminal consequences? Your ‘arrogant’ comment makes me think that you believe you could argue your way out of it, however this is an assumption. No, I believe I could avoid it by avoiding investigation and suspicion, destroying evidence, fleeing jurisdictions, and all the other things criminals do to attempt to avoid capture. I have no illusions that people in law enforcement, or jurries would be willing to listen to my arguments, and when someone isn’t listening, it’s impossible to convince them of anything. The point is, I consider myself intelligent, and it is my belief that I could protect myself from law enforcement should that become necessary. That belief does not extend to my confidence in my ability to protect someone else, however, as I hold myself to a higher standard of certainty where others’ safety is concerned than I do where my safety is concerned. Because I don’t believe I could protect a hypothetical lover, I don’t risk it. Simple as that. > [@Meatros](#): > > In the end, I’m not buying it. I think this is a persona you’ve adopted. Believe what you’re going to believe. Nothing I can do to stop you. > [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > **Cesario** , when I was being fucked by a pedophile when I was 7 years old he would ask me if I liked it and if it felt good. I always said “yes”. I didn’t say yes because it actually felt good, it felt disgusting and horrible. I said “yes” because children are taught to do what adults tell them to and I knew the right answer was “yes”. Seems to me that the rape was far from the only thing wrong with that situation. If you’ve been so conditioned to never say “no” to an adult that you’re not even willing to express any form of displeasure with their behaviors, you’d been plenty screwed up before dealing with the **child molester** (learn the difference between child molesters and pedophiles). > [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > So if you find yourself fucking some little girl and she’s told you she likes it and wants to do it, don’t mistake that as consent, it isn’t. It’s only her being controlled and manipulated by you. But when she’s an adult, she’ll post on message boards about what a sick fuck you are and wish you were dead. And how are we to know that this isn’t the case with adults we have sex with? After all, that adult might secretly hate you for agreeing to have sex with him/her too. Since the person might be lying when they say they want to have sex with you, no one should ever have sex with anyone under any circumstances. > [@omgzebras](#): > > There are women that you find sexually attractive? I thought your cut off was around age 10? While my primary age of attraction is 0-10, I have a secondary attraction to adults in the “normal” range. Basically, it just means that I’m not interested in the ones going through puberty. I preffer before but am largely okay after. > [@Dublin11](#): > > So the single reason you don’t actually have sex with a child is because of what society would say? About **her**? > Pffft. You paedophiles today - no commitment. > > You’re a fantasist. > There is no sexual urge on this planet that is ever constrained because of what society says. Never has been and never will be. People always end up fucking what turns them on. They’ve done it in the past and they still do it in times and places when they’d be/still are sentenced to death for adultery or homosexuality or whatever else their society says is a bad thing and yet your only concern is what other people would think of your fuckee? > > Can you really not see how silly you sound? I continue to marvel at how often people try to chip away at my reasons for not molesting children. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/355 "2009-10-05T06:14:14Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. So explain to me why the **exact same act** when performed by another child is normal exploration is horrific exploitation when performed by an adult. I’ll wait. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > I don’t care if it’s acted on or no–it’s wrong. So you see no difference between raping people and not raping people? > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. So you see the beauty, you just think that my particular angle on that beauty is disturbed. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > To then say that you are giving the child the gift of your sexuality, _for their pleasure,_ is evil. Who said that? > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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? Why in the world do you assume that just because I have a non-mainstream kink that I’m sex-obsessed and incapable of showing any interest in anything else? > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. You have a good reason? That’s great. I’ve been looking for a good reason for the taboo for some time now. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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? Considering you have only my word that this girl even exists, I should think you’d be more inclined to take me at my word regarding what’s gone on with her. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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). Ah, accusing me of being a rapist again based on absolutely nothing. Hard not to see it as bringing enlightenment to the misguided masses when the misguided masses keep getting basic facts of the situation completely wrong. Like, for example, the fact that kids aren’t allowed to post here in the first place. 😉 > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. No, that’s situational child molesters, not pedophiles. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. Considering attempts at reorienting people have met with abysmal failure according to all the mainstream research done on the subject, and have resulted in, at best, failure… And that’s putting asside the more significant question of why I should try to change. You’ve so far presented me with no good reason to make such a misguided attempt. > [@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. You don’t seem to understand that the majority of pedophiles don’t rape molest children. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > What **Cesario** is saying, so many times and in so many different ways, is that his pleasure is paramount. Where have I said that? If it’s happened so many times, surely you can find an example. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. Again with the gross overestimation of my endowment. Flattering, yes, but still strange to see. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > I won’t state the obvious re their emotional and psychological and spiritual trauma. It’s far from obvious, I’m afraid. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. I still have no idea where you’re getting any of this. Are you just a misandrist? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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. What do teenagers have to do with this, exactly? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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 I’m still not seeing where you’re getting this “it’s all about me” stuff from my posts. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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. If that’s the only thing that’s “wrong” with someone, it’s circular to use that as evidence that they’re fucked up. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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. You are aware that the definition of “rape” is mutually exclusive with the definition of “consensual” and that the definition of “a relationship” is utterly irrelevant to either term, yes? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Virtually ALL pedos and child molesters are PREDATORS. Very few pedophiles and every child molester, actually. And since there are far more pedophiles than child molesters… > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > 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! Please, explain sex (and relationships) to the rest of the class. Share your incredible knowledge. Then explain why no human being under whatever magic-age-line-based-on-nothing you prefer would be utterly incapable of understanding what you just wrote. > [@supergoose](#): > > 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. Thank you for that. > [@supergoose](#): > > 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. Like I mentioned in the PM exchange we had, I’m not going to give up that resentment. Nothing has changed about that. Also, I’m really not that into you in the first place. I mean you seem nice and all, but I barely know you, and I suspect that we probably aren’t compatible on a number of other dimensions. > [@supergoose](#): > > 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. I have no interest in attempting to reorient myself. Whether it could succeed or not, I’ve no interest in the attempt. While I accept that you genuinely believe this to be in my best interest, I do not intend to change who I am for the sake of a group of violent bigots. > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Well, if you want to split hairs, how about this one. > > Cesario has posted that it is not the laws against child sexual abuse that deter him. In fact, he has posted that he could beat the rap – somehow. > > Rather, it is concern about his victim – er, partner – that holds him back. The child will essentially be tortured and abused by attempts to treeat a trauma that never actually happens, because of course his partner will be willing and eager and the experience will not be traumatic. > > So while Cesario is indeed advocating for changes in laws regardimg the restrictions placed on minors, those changes are not strictly necessary for him to do his diddling. If Cesario finds a child that he feels is trustworthy enough to keep her mouth shut – not for his sake of course, but for her own – he can fuck her. Or if he finds a child who’s parents are ‘understanding’ and won’t subject her to subsequent psychological abuse, it would seem she too would be a valid target. > > So, it is not in fact the laws aginst child rape that hold him back, it is the treatment offered to the child afterward. > > Can the staff find any wiggle room in this interpretation? This assumes I believe that parents to be the sole source of this psychological abuse, and that I assume that it would be absent entirely if she weren’t found out. I do not believe this to be the case, and a moment’s reflection should provide you with several good reasons why it isn’t the case. > [@Chris\_Hansen](#): > > Where is this **Cesario** person anyway? I’m right here. It takes a while to slog through the stuff that’s been posted. ---
**Author:** ![anya\_marie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@anya\_marie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anya_marie)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/356 "2009-10-05T06:25:42Z")
I wouldn’t trust Cesario around a four year old couch, never mind a 4 year old child. I don’t see any reason why we have to tolerate this douchetruck here; and find myself agrreeing with eleanorrigby. I don’t see anything wrong with a 30 year old person having a fantasy about a 21 year old. I think marijuana should be legal, and while i don’t always read the MMPs they can be amusing. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/357 "2009-10-05T06:30:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The child will essentially be tortured and abused by attempts to treeat a trauma that never actually happens, because of course his partner will be willing and eager and the experience will not be traumatic. Hmmmmm…you know I just thought of something…With the rhetorical " screening tool" how will it differentate between what the child wants and what the adult wants? Child molesters/pedophiles are MANIPULATORS!!! A kid will pretty much be pressured into doing something like that any and every time. Especially if they think that the adult is a friend. Sorry…but I’ve seen FAR too many bad outcomes from that sort of thing. I know we’ve had some people on the board going " maybe it’s not the molestation that’s so bad, but the reaction to it" Sorry…but if a kid doesn’t get treated they start REALLY acting out …like drugs and alkyhol and fucked up ideas about sex and relationships. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/358 "2009-10-05T10:49:04Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > Basically, it just means that I’m not interested in the ones going through puberty. Picky, picky. :rolleyes: > [@Cesario](#): > > On NationStates, I’ve operated under the alias The Five Castes, though that was some time ago. I actually joined that one because a child-sex advocate there was being a jackass, and he was advocating clearly dangerous, illegal behaviors, and I was upset that his poor behavior was reflecting badly on the rest of us. Considering your performance here, I shudder to think what you consider “poor behavior” to be. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/359 "2009-10-05T12:15:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > ?? > As to whether i am posting as a Moderator, I am presenting the current view of the staff that we have hammered out in off-board discussions, so perhaps I am. On the other hand, I am not posting directions regarding rules, so I am not posting in that sort of official capacity. If you are going to take a shot at me, I am not going to get upset over it; you’ll have to run it past Gfactor to see how he would view it. Wait, seriously? You _don’t know_ whether you’re posting in your capacity as a moderator or not? “Perhaps you are?” Why don’t you figure it out, and then get back to us? As for Jodi’s comment that you quoted, to me it reads as strongly-worded, but not snide. It certainly didn’t include any personal potshots along the lines of your “I thought you were a lawyer” comment. I thought you guys were always very clear about when you were posting as mods and when you weren’t. This “Perhaps I am, perhaps I’m not, why don’t you try getting in trouble and see if it works?” stuff is really, really not cool. ---
**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 5, 2009, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/360 "2009-10-05T12:55:49Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > I thought you guys were always very clear about when you were posting as mods and when you weren’t. This “Perhaps I am, perhaps I’m not, why don’t you try getting in trouble and see if it works?” stuff is really, really not cool. Unfortunately, refusing to identify whether an admonishment was made as a mod or a poster is not unique to tomndebb. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11619888&postcount=67](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11619888&postcount=67) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/361 "2009-10-05T12:57:41Z")
In response to Muffin’s whining about not being able to tell people to fuck off while permitting a poster to promote pederasty, I noted that if someone would provide evidence that he was promoting the action rather than just whining that he couldn’t engage in that behavior the staff position would change. I mistakenly thought that, in conrtext, the distinction I made in that post distinguished between what was permitted and what was forbidden. Rather than asking for a specific clarification regardinmg my use of “promoting,” Jodi snidely, (whatever you think), made the claim, counter to fact, that we chose to EXCUSE (her caps) his predilictions. On the point of whether I am posting as a Mod, I explained my position and I made it clear that I was not going to take any retribution if she decided she needed to insult me and noted that that decision was up to Gfactor. I did not suggest that she post an insult and see what happened. She is quite capable of e-mailing Gfactor with her intended post and getting his decision before it hits the board. Posters in GD do that all the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=19)