# 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:** 29
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/562 "2009-10-08T03:44:44Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > So why bother calling? I think you’ve detected my point! There would be no reason to call because there is nothing to report. > [@](#): > > Have you heard about the recidivism rate for child abusers ? Yes, I have. I’m a little skeptical of the highest numbers but I am not up to date on all the research. > [@](#): > > Does that have no bearing on the likelyhood of a pedophile to offend ? It has no bearing whatsoever because by definition recidivism is REOFFENDING- usually after being caught. So it has nothing to do with first offenses. ---
**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 8, 2009, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/563 "2009-10-08T04:04:54Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It would still be child molestation whether it was legal or not. Children would still be traumatized by unwanted sexual contact from adults, and they would require the same therapy to undue the psychological damage – the only change would that it would become impossible to exact any restitution since their abusers are no longer breaking the law. > > I wonder how long **Cesario’s** argument would stand – how he doesn’t fuck kids because it would traumatize them, not because he fears any legal repercussions – if it suddenly became legal for him to fuck children? Would he remain celibate, steadfast in his claim that society is “holding a gun to his lover’s head,” due to the way psychiatry treats victims of sexual abuse? No, I think you’d find a sudden change in **Cesario’s** behavior, where he’s no longer concerned with society’s disdain for sex with children, and instead would be writing in his blog where he brags about his recent sexual conquests. Think about it – the guy has no moral integrity whatsoever. :mad: > Oh, he’s already gotten away with a lot, that’s for sure. One wonders if he’s done a lot of traveling to countries where it IS legal. Aren’t there nations in the east where child brothels are common? And I don’t believe for a second that he doesn’t own SOME type of child porn. ---
**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 8, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/564 "2009-10-08T04:29:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’ve been trying to imagine that conversation all thread, since a couple of people have said the mods should contact the authorities. It’d probably go like this: > > “Police department of [town **Cesario** is in].” > “Hi there, I’d like to report a pedophile I found on the internet.” > “Do you have reason to believe this person plans to abuse a child?” > “No. Mostly he’s saying he should be allowed to have sex with children if they consented.” > “Has he confessed to a crime?” > “He says he wouldn’t break the law.” > “Do you believe he’s harmed a child in the past?” > “He says he hasn’t. I don’t know.” > “Do you have reason to believe this person is in possession of child pornography?” > “No.” > “Has he been grooming a child or discussed doing so?” > “No. He says he’s into kids younger than 10, and there aren’t any on the site.” > “Is this person a registered sex offender?” > “Not as far as I know.” > “So what would you like us to do?” > “I felt like I should say something, in case it helps.” > “Thank you.” Based on my experience of how the police track potential child sex offenders in my jurisdiction, you have a poor imagination. Of course YMMV depending on how police handle such matters where you are. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/565 "2009-10-08T04:31:44Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Based on my experience of how the police track potential child sex offenders in my jurisdiction, you have a poor imagination. Of course YMMV depending on how police handle such matters where you are. So, tell us, how DO the police track potential child sex offenders in your jurisdiction? ---
**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 8, 2009, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/566 "2009-10-08T04:43:14Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > So, tell us, how DO the police track potential child sex offenders in your jurisdiction? [http://www.billmauro.onmpp.ca/pressreleases.aspx?id=44](http://www.billmauro.onmpp.ca/pressreleases.aspx?id=44) Track them down through their internet use, monitor what they do over the internet, then scoop their computers and nail them for child porn, or set up a sting for luring. It’s taken very seriously here, with an emphasis on proactive investigation and enforcement, and close cooperation between different police agencies. What do the police do where you are? ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/567 "2009-10-08T05:05:28Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Oh like Lolita? " Oh I can’t help it! She led me on…Boofreakinghoo! Never read the book. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I think that ANY kid who has a sexual encounter with an adult needs counseling and therapy. Virtually ALL active pedos prey on kids with VERY low self esteem. If a kid isn’t treated, they could think " Oh nothing happened…it felt good when Joe touched me and made me feel good. Maybe a little kid and an adult man (b/c almost all the time it’s a man abusing the kid) isn’t too bad. I have nothing else in my life that makes me feel good. I won’t tell other grown-ups that Joe’s friend touched me" Like make sure that they know about what healthy relationships are, and that they shouldn’t use sex for their entire source of self-esteem. Were you planning to point out the flaws in this hypothetical untreated child’s reasoning? Also, you’re still using made-up terms. Real words do exist for the concept you’re trying to convey. I’ve provided them for you repeatedly. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Cesario… …Kids know about sex…but they don’t think about it the way a mentally healthy adult does. “No true Scotsman” waiting to happen. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > You really are grasping at straws here with your " Oh you don’t remember what it’s like to be a kid! Or do you remember what it was like to be a preschooler and wanting to get laid by some sperm or ova? I have no idea where you’re getting this bizzare idea that your recollections are objectively superior and more accurate than mine. Fact is, our anecdotal experiences and gut instincts cancel one another out in a debate. That’s why people tend to start using things like citations and independently verifiable facts. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > or that pecentage of pedophile cite. Got a better cite? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I was a kid…and while I remember some sex stuff, it was just SO distinctly different from the way I view sex as an adult. We are NOT blindly arbitartaily going " ALL kids under such and such an age cannot consent" It’s basied on clear SCIENCE! Well, it’s hard to argue with SCIENCE! Mainly because SCIENCE! is what you use to make monsters out of body parts, death rays, and radiation mutated guard dogs. Nothing to do with actual science, which happens to support my arguments. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Psychology tells us that most kids are still learning about basic realtionships. I mean there’s a HUGE diffy between " You like chocolate milk? I like chocolate milk? We’ll be best friends!" and the adult concept of a healthy romantic realtionship. Define the adult concept of a healthy romantic relationship. You’ve so completely managed to define the child’s concept of a relationship, you should have no trouble applying the same thoroughness and insight to defining what it is children are inherently incapable of ever comprehending, yes? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Someone can think someone is attractive without wanting to have sex with them.(my girlfriend is a lesbian and thinks a lot of men are hot, but she doesn’t want to have sex with them) > Heck when I found out that my current girlfriend was still a mid-teen when I first fell in love with her, (she’s of age now, and we waited to have a relationship until she was of age) I felt kind of oogie about that. (I’m ten years older then she is) Ah, the old lash out at someone because they remind you of your own failings routine. Got it. Me, I’ve long since gotten over the self-hate. Hopefully one day you’ll manage the same. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Oh…and I’d have to say that the problem with pedos is that they are FIXTATED on the fact that they are attracted to kids, in an almost Asperger’s Syndrome way. They are FIXTATED…and they don’t understand that simple attention isn’t a sinal saying" I want to have sex with you!" Where did I suggest anyone was signaling that to me? Seriously, do you read any of this, or just assume that I fit whatever steriotype image you have constructed in your head? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > And you know Cesario…I totally and completely give up on you. It is CLEAR that you are mentally ill. You’re like a borderline or a sociopath or an extreme narcissitist. " Oh it’s not ME. It’s everyone else who is wrong! Oh boo hoo hoo…Sorry but it IS you. You need HELP. You honestly honestly need help. Go and see a psychologist. I’m sure many of the folks on this board who have dealt with people like you can attest that you are not alone in your distorted thinking…Maybe you’re a sociopath and that’s why you don’t understand that something like what you propose is all shades of fucked up! You know, if I ever do feel an inclination to get a psychiatric analysis, I’ll seek one from someone far more qualified than some random bigot on a message board who can’t seem to get over a basic confirmation bias. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Kids cannot consent. They really have no clue what sex is from an ADULT point of view! It’s FAR too complex for them to understand! End of discussion. Explain it to me. We’re both adults after all, so we ought to be able to understand it. Then you can explain why no child could ever understand what you just wrote. > [@Shalmanese](#): > > Since I defended the Rind et al study, I feel in the interest to fairness to point out that the Blanchard study assumed that arousal, as measured by a Penile Plethysmograph indicated interest which is a [deeply contentious assumption](http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/plethysmograph.html). > > Given the problems it has measuring sexual orientation: > > I don’t think the Blanchard study could have reliably measured pedophilia. Even if we assume 50% of the identifed pedophiles were false positives, the numbers I used still demonstrate that a nonpedophile is more likely to molest a child than a pedophile is. > [@Meatros](#): > > I haven’t really read any of the other threads you’ve been in. I don’t get around to the SD all that much and the reason this thread interested me was because Dio made it and he’s generally a poster (albeit usually on another board) that I respect his opinion. > > As to your question - I just did some research; I’m not familiar with either the Shakespeare play or the Kiddy Grade show. It’s just that the play is so much more famous, I’d have expected that to turn up first, suggesting either a pre-existing knowledge of the anime, or a stroll through my post history. But that’s neither here nor there. > [@Meatros](#): > > Here’s the problem with your position - which I assume is the following (if it’s not, then it’s not a problem): > > 1. You desire these sorts of sexual relationships (0-10). > 2. You think they should be legal with the provision that the 0-10 year old: > A. Is not harmed either physically or mentally > B. Knowingly gives their consent (by knowingly I mean, understands it). Do you see some sort of flaw with this reasoning? > [@Meatros](#): > > Thus enter the hypothetical child. > > Now, the problem that I see is that it’s really not possible for such a child to exist. And your belief in this impossibility is based on what exactly? > [@Meatros](#): > > I think you would go so far as to say this probable (but not impossible) - am I right? No, but neither of our estimations of the probabilities are even remotely relevant. > [@Meatros](#): > > If I am right, then I don’t see any reason why the laws should be changed since it’s highly improbable (I would say impossible) for such a hypothetical child to exist. Because my particular age of attraction has absolutely nothing to do with the legal reforms I am proposing, obviously. > [@Meatros](#): > > Okay, go on… The entire point of guardianship is to take the power over a person’s life and put it in the hands of someone other than that person. Add to that the fact that the guardian is the legal owner of any property the individual would otherwise be considered to own (hense why they can take things like gifts from other people away from the child as punishment), and we have a number of paralells. > [@Meatros](#): > > By undermine, you mean effect people’s opinions - correct? If so, do you think you’ve been successful at all? The path to correcting those social structures lies, among other places, in tearing down the laws which relegate children to the status of second-class citizens at best, and human chattel at worst. > [@Meatros](#): > > To take this further, you think that the harm is primarily due to the laws and attitudes the culture has towards these actions. Do you deny any actual harm to the child outside of the stigma of society? I haven’t seen any proof of such harm. Do you have some to present? I’ve been looking for it for some time now. > [@Meatros](#): > > Your charming words are certainly not motivating me. And your unbacked accusations are hardly encouraging me to go out of my way for you either. > [@Meatros](#): > > What are your views on incest? Relveance? Beyond the obvious ad-hominim attack, I mean. > [@Meatros](#): > > Have you ever had interactions with children who have been abused, sexually or physically? Yes. > [@Meatros](#): > > That is, have you ever seen the end results of the relationship that you hypothetically would like to have? I don’t think you understand the nature of the relationships I would like to have. > [@Meatros](#): > > Actually I think it does since in one situation one of the partners actually has an awareness of what will take place, whereas in the other situation the partner does not. Age is not the same thing as awareness or knowledge. Why is this so difficult a concept? > [@Meatros](#): > > Now you could hypothetically posit the ‘Nell’ adult, but that’s not going to help your case, since the entire point is about knowledge and the ability to make an informed decision about sexual relationships. Nell? > [@Meatros](#): > > How would you assess this knowledge? Have you seen the RMSC proposal? > [@Meatros](#): > > So none of the children in your age range can give consent, this is what you are saying, correct? No. I’m saying nothing of the sort. Me finding someone attractive does not say anything one way or the other about their ability to consent. > [@Meatros](#): > > This is problematic since, presumably, children under 10 would necessarily lack the physical knowledge since they have not gone through puberty. Define “physical knowledge”. What do breasts and pubic hair have to do with knowledge and understanding? > [@Meatros](#): > > Also, how would they acquire such knowledge? I mean, in order to fully understand you would have to educate them - but then wouldn’t you run the risk of ‘grooming’ them to be partners? > > In short, it seems like a vicious circle. Only because you seem to assume that knowledge is inherently bad, or that what I would be doing would have little, if anything, to do with passing on knowledge. It’s less a vicious cycle than it is you choosing to assume things without any reason. > [@Meatros](#): > > Another thing that has come to mind, you have been accused of trolling and of having a persona (by myself and others) and you are attempting to clear this up (ie, you’ve provided links for me to assess your claims) - but, and try to be as clear as possible, what do you believe the end results will be to your avocation of your hypothetical behavior? An end to age lines in all areas of society. Bodily domain being just one important area of debate. > [@Meatros](#): > > You have said that you wish to change the laws and society, but I’m not entirely clear why since it seems that even according to you, 0-10 year olds can’t give consent. Some can’t. I don’t discount the ability of all of them as you seem to be implying. > [@Meatros](#): > > So why should the laws/society change to be more accommodating? Because none of my proposals have anything to do with my age of attraction, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/568 "2009-10-08T05:06:40Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > The more I read what **Cesario** ’s saying, the more I think we’d all be better off if the interesting parts of what he has to say (People currently considered “children” may actually be better able to make “adult” decisions than we think they are, here’s a proposed test for one such thing, what do you think?) were disjoint from his admitting that he’s a pedophile who is mostly attracted to pre-pubescents. Arguing for youth emancipation is a lot less “squicky” when we don’t have to question the motives of the people doing it. Would you (or anyone else) rather I just lied about my interests and **actually** engaged in the sort of dishonest deception people seem to think I’ve been engaging in already? Seems to me such a tactic is practically guarenteed to blow up in my face. Best to put it all out on the table in the beginning, so you don’t get caught in a lie later on. > [@miamouse](#): > > I’ve a question: He posted his criteria for what he feels should determine age of consent. (BTW has it been posted anywhere else and if so does that violate copyright?) I wrote it (along with another individual who has given express permission to repost it as I see fit), so there are no copyright issues. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m 44 year old. I’m attracted to nubile young women in their 20’s with perfect bodies, preferably with long supple legs, and shapely little behinds. > > On the surface most people would say, “get a life Jack. 20 year olds are not in your wheelhouse anymore.” Other’s might say, “you’re a nothing but a dirty old man.” To which I would reply, “that may be, but I guaran-goddamned-tee you, if I ever have a chance to fuck a 20 year old, with long supple legs and a shapely little behind … I’m gonna.” > > This isn’t about rational daliances with fantasy partners. This is about this guy wanting something. Wanting it bad. If he has the chance, he’s gonna do it. Don’t fucking fool yourself. So, you plan on raping such a woman if you feel you could get away with it, and you believe we should be looking to you as an example of normalcy? > [@miamouse](#): > > Here’s the thing: what is bothering people is not that he’s a out pedophile. It’s that he’s stated that he feels obligated to breaking an unjust law, and if he in fact did so in the future is devious and smart enough to get away with it, if he hasn’t already. It’s that he’s actively pursuing ways around it, even though he’s also claimed to be attracted to adult women. It’s that he doesn’t think it’s wrong to do so, but that society is wrong to make him not be able to do so. > > Were he reasonable, “I like this I know it’s bad, I’m not going to act on it”, In other words, the only position you will accept from me is crippling self-loathing. Good thing I’ve long since moved on from caring what you think. > [@miamouse](#): > > instead of "I like this I know you SAY it’s bad, but you’re all wrong, Well, you are. > [@miamouse](#): > > I’ll do it if/when it’s legal Any particular reason this is so controversial a concept? > [@miamouse](#): > > and **lalala I can’t hear you. When you claim it will damage the child mentally or physically it’s irrelevant.**" More like unproven assertions. If you can present something with actual backing that’d really go a long way towards making me give a rat’s ass about you continuing to assert this. > [@miamouse](#): > > He claims not to be attracted to females between the ages of 13-18. (0-12 and adult females) I call bullshit. According to him, a child’s innocence is ‘sexy’ and ‘attractive’ (_urk_), except when a teen is innocent and they start to have adult sex characteristics? Didn’t he also state that secondary sex characteristics didn’t do it for him? Which is true? Wow, hard to decide where to begin. I guess first off, it’s 0-10, not 0-12. I’ve never found ignorance particularly attractive, and my sexual attractions to prepubescents are entirely rooted in the lack of secondary sex characteristics. > [@MsWhatsit](#): > > You know, I think I have finally definitely decided that he is a troll, based on the fact that when people point out that an adult male can’t have sex with an infant child without physically damaging the infant child, his response is, “Ha ha, it’s so funny that you are overestimating the size of my equipment. Gee, thanks.” > > This is so ridiculously over-the-top that it has to be trollery. Not to mention the fact that he has mentioned his supposed pedophilia in almost every thread he’s participated in on the SDMB. > > Troll. Actually, I just thought it was getting rediculus when they compared my penis to a child’s forearm. Have you seen a child’s forearm? > [@Zeriel](#): > > He’s said a lot of internally contradictory things, true, but I’m really fundamentally pro-free-speech and the whole debate smacks of “thoughtcrime” if he’s NOT actually doing any harm to children, you know? While a lot of internally contradictory things have been attributed to me, I’ve tried to keep what I actually say relatively consistent. > [@Zeriel](#): > > I think at this point I’d like to hear from the man himself: > > **Cesario** : You’ve elsewhere on these forums proposed a systemic method for determining whether or not any given person is capable of consent to sexual activity. If hypothetically your method is passed as the legal way to determine capability to consent, and further that method determines that there are NO individuals under 12 years of age who are capable of giving consent–what is your response? That this is a great victory, and that we’ve finally got a system in place for this important right which doesn’t use arbitrary age lines, but real, measurable, relevent criteria. Good news all around. A bit of disapointment that the results turned out as they did, but overall, quite positive feelings on the whole situation. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Do you drop the idea of having sex with children as clearly always statutory rape and therefore wrong due to the inability to give consent? Yep, because now there’d be actual evidence in support of that proposition. Not to mention the fact that if the impossible should happen at some point in the future, said child would not be arbitrarily denied their rights. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Or do you think such a result would prima fascie indicate that there was something flawed with the process? In and of itself, no. Suspicious statistical groupings might suggest some doctoring or process issues, but not having anyone under a certain age pass would not, in itself, suggest anything at all wrong with the test, regardless of what that age happened to be. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It would still be child molestation whether it was legal or not. Children would still be traumatized by unwanted sexual contact from adults, and they would require the same therapy to undue the psychological damage – the only change would that it would become impossible to exact any restitution since their abusers are no longer breaking the law. You are aware that we have this concept called “rape” whereby if you don’t want sex, and someone forces you into it, it’s still a crime, right? Being allowed to say “yes” doesn’t take away the ability to say “no”. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > I wonder how long **Cesario’s** argument would stand – how he doesn’t fuck kids because it would traumatize them, not because he fears any legal repercussions – if it suddenly became legal for him to fuck children? Would he remain celibate, steadfast in his claim that society is “holding a gun to his lover’s head,” due to the way psychiatry treats victims of sexual abuse? No, I think you’d find a sudden change in **Cesario’s** behavior, where he’s no longer concerned with society’s disdain for sex with children, and instead would be writing in his blog where he brags about his recent sexual conquests. Think about it – the guy has no moral integrity whatsoever. :mad: More a matter of the criminality of it being a significant contributing factor to the way such children are treated. But please, go on. > [@supergoose](#): > > You can’t possibly mean someone here on this board should do so, do you? Or does \*\*fuzzypickles \*\*have any solid evidence to back up his assertion that \*\*Cesario \*\*has “gotten away with a lot, that’s for sure”? I assumed this was a reference to my so called “trolling”. > [@miamouse](#): > > I mean to say that if someone has “reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect” they should call. If he’s telling the truth then he should not be worried at all then should he? > > ETA: That’s my opinion. If he has a right to say the things he has because that’s his opinion, then I have the right to mine. Maybe I should report you. Have the police confescate your computer, turn your life upside down, and tell everyone around you that you’re under investigation for sexually abusing children. If you’re really innocent, you have nothing to fear, right? A troll who’d taken to stalking me over on another forum some time ago decided that one of the people arguing against me wasn’t being extreme enough in her positions (and was getting annoyed that the troll was spamming in the forum), so the troll hacked her account, sent her personal information to her local police, and caused her considerable trouble. She’s currently pursuing legal action. Of course, she had nothing to hide too… > [@Guinastasia](#): > > And that’s a good thing? (Not that it would ever happen.) > > At the same time, in theory, let’s say in society, you now have to take a test every time you meet a new lover – how arrousing is that? You clearly didn’t read the proposal. You only have to take the test once. Think of it like a driving test. You don’t need to take a new test every time you buy a new car. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > One wonders if he’s done a lot of traveling to countries where it IS legal. Aren’t there nations in the east where child brothels are common? Never had any interest in fucking prostitutes of any age, personally. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > And I don’t believe for a second that he doesn’t own SOME type of child porn. Considering Target Ads can qualify as child porn under some interpretations of the law… ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/569 "2009-10-08T05:39:00Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Well then , answer me this. Why is he posting his ugly desires on this message board? I don’t know why you post here and you have been here far longer than he has. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > No insult was intended. I am disappointed that you would tell such a blatant lie. ---
**Author:** ![3trew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/13edae/32.png) [@3trew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3trew)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/570 "2009-10-08T05:53:17Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Well then , answer me this. Why is he posting his ugly desires on this message board? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I don’t know why you post here and you have been here far longer than he has. So stop criticizing the mods and go back to something milder, like suggesting it would be great if we changed the laws so you could fuck preschool children. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/571 "2009-10-08T07:07:06Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am disappointed that you would tell such a blatant lie. You blatantly lie about me but you’re “disappointed” in Dutchman? I guess we can add hypocrite to that stellar CV. ---
**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 8, 2009, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/572 "2009-10-08T07:17:05Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > It would still be child molestation whether it was legal or not. Children would still be traumatized by\*\* unwanted \*\*sexual contact from adults, and they would require the same therapy to undue the psychological damage – the only change would that it would become impossible to exact any restitution since their abusers are no longer breaking the law. I’ve bolded the bit that’s significant. I agree with the statement as posted, but I’m not sure I’d agree that there would be any trauma if the sexual contact was wanted, and there were no legal repercussions. For instance, how traumatized are the New Guinean tribesmen who have to suck dick to become men? How traumatized were the _eromenoi_? ---
**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 8, 2009, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/573 "2009-10-08T07:46:04Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > And that’s a good thing? (Not that it would ever happen.) If someone’s ready for sex, they’re ready for sex. Myself, I wasn’t, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who was, but I don’t discount the idea. I have met 13yos who were, so the idea isn’t that strange to me. I realise those three years are quite a big gap in quite a fast-changing time in a young person’s life, so _not_ finding any precocious 10yos would also not surprise me. > [@](#): > > At the same time, in theory, let’s say in society, you now have to take a test every time you meet a new lover – how arrousing is that? I thought the idea was you took it (well, passed it) once, and then you had a permanent “sex license”, as it were. carding someone should be even less of an arousal dampener than finding the condom, in that case. ---
**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 8, 2009, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/574 "2009-10-08T07:56:41Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > No? > Consent doers not wipe out abuse. Actually, I rather believe it does.Or else there are a lot of bottoms out there that have valid assault cases. ---
**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 8, 2009, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/575 "2009-10-08T08:38:24Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > And I don’t believe for a second that he doesn’t own SOME type of child porn. Fuck, by Mother Grundy standards, \*I \*“own some type of child porn”. I believe I’ve even linked to some in a photography thread. People are making up shit to get offended about here. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/576 "2009-10-08T09:08:12Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > > [@supergoose](#): > > > > You can’t possibly mean someone here on this board should do so, do you? **Or does fuzzypickles** have any solid evidence to back up his assertion that Cesario has “gotten away with a lot, that’s for sure”? > > I assumed this was a reference to my so called “trolling”. Congratulations, that’s the first intelligent thing you’ve said since you joined this message board. > [@Cesario](#): > > Considering Target Ads can qualify as child porn under some interpretations of the law… Target ads?? Heck, for someone in your position, even a Powderpuff Girls DVD would raise eyebrows. **Cesario** , I’m starting to wonder if your whole pedophile image is something you’ve just made up to get attention from people. You’ve shown no interest in debating the matter rationally, and you’ve been consistently snarky and confrontational when people challenge your belief system. You clearly have no sense of how you come across to people, nor have you shown any concern for how utterly stupid and immature you are making yourself look. I’m actually starting to feel sorry for the members of GirlChat for having someone like you as a spokesman – frankly, if I were one of them, you would be the last person I would want arguing on my behalf. For your sake, I hope you’re just a petty troll. If not, then you are clearly delusional, and your obsession with children pales in comparison to your obsession with stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/577 "2009-10-08T09:18:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I agree with the statement as posted, but I’m not sure I’d agree that there would be any trauma if the sexual contact was wanted, and there were no legal repercussions. For instance, how traumatized are the New Guinean tribesmen who have to suck dick to become men? How traumatized were the _eromenoi_? Both examples refer to rituals which are/were fully endorsed and accepted by their particular cultures, which makes a HUGE difference. There’s also a coming-of-age mentality inherently ingrained in the relationship, which simply does not exist in society at large today. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/578 "2009-10-08T09:50:02Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > **Cesario** , I’m starting to wonder if your whole pedophile image is something you’ve just made up to get attention from people. You’ve shown no interest in debating the matter rationally, and you’ve been consistently snarky and confrontational when people challenge your belief system. You clearly have no sense of how you come across to people, nor have you shown any concern for how utterly stupid and immature you are making yourself look. I’m actually starting to feel sorry for the members of GirlChat for having someone like you as a spokesman – frankly, if I were one of them, you would be the last person I would want arguing on my behalf. Mate, the whole thing smells of troll. Of course troll is not an exclusive conclusion. For your sake, I hope you’re just a petty troll. If not, then you are clearly delusional, and your obsession with children pales in comparison to your obsession with stupidity. [/QUOTE] > [@leander](#): > > You blatantly lie about me but you’re “disappointed” in Dutchman? > > I guess we can add hypocrite to that stellar CV. As opposed to your CV, which appears to be so petty that you need to play school yard “My Daddy can beat your daddy” type games? > [@Muffin](#): > > Based on my experience of how the police track potential child sex offenders in my jurisdiction, you have a poor imagination. Of course YMMV depending on how police handle such matters where you are. One would rather suspect that given a world of limited resources, in reality, that said police track based on something other than trolling a message board. Else your police are idiots and wasting much time chasing after 19 years amusing themselves by fucking around with the easily jerked around. Monitoring child oriented areas and monitoring paedophile oriented sites is rational. Reacting to this tripe is sheer stupidity. ---
**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 8, 2009, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/579 "2009-10-08T09:58:12Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Both examples refer to rituals which are/were fully endorsed and accepted by their particular cultures, which makes a HUGE difference. There’s also a coming-of-age mentality inherently ingrained in the relationship, which simply does not exist in society at large today. So you agree the trauma is a social construct derived from societal disdain, and not inherent in the mere existence of an adult-child romantic relationship, then? Leaving aside the notions of physical trauma and outright rape for the moment. And by “does not exist in society at large today” I assume you mean a strictly secular Eurocentric one, because [coming-of-age rituals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation#Tribal_initiations) are a big deal in large parts of _my_ society. Plus you’re excluding an awful lot of people in “your” society there, from Jews(bris, bar/bat mitzvah) to Mormons (mission), Amish(raumspringe), Hindus(lots of different ones), Catholics(baptism, 1st communion), etc. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/580 "2009-10-08T10:16:22Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > As opposed to your CV, which appears to be so petty that you need to play school yard “My Daddy can beat your daddy” type games? I’m not sure how a CV can be petty, but in any event…my Dad CAN beat up your Dad! Actually, probably not. He was a professor of English and Comparative Literature. A very smart guy, but maybe not a bigtime fighter. Frankly, I think that the SDMB is an exceptional place, and I do have to wonder if it is being run by amateurs and shoe salesmen. But for this thread, the only evidence in play is the stupidty of TPTB allowing a pedo to foster and promote behaviour that is illegal in the US. ---
**Author:** ![miamouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ad7895/32.png) [@miamouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miamouse)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2009, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/581 "2009-10-08T10:23:37Z")
**Cesario** says: > [@](#): > > A troll who’d taken to stalking me over on another forum some time ago decided that one of the people arguing against me wasn’t being extreme enough in her positions (and was getting annoyed that the troll was spamming in the forum), so the troll hacked her account, sent her personal information to her local police, and caused her considerable trouble. She’s currently pursuing legal action. Of course, she had nothing to hide too… umm, hmmm. So someone stalks you, but hacks the person running the site instead of hacking you. That makes about as much sense as your other claims. If it was some sort of site promoting child abuse then the police could take the woman’s claims seriously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=30)