# Cesario, you're awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973>\
**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:** 39

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![supergoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@supergoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supergoose)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/762 "2009-10-14T19:32:30Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Cesario - I realize that our conversation is rather long (the last post I had to break up because it went over the board limits) and I think we are getting to the point where nothing new will be said (I could be wrong), but a question occurred to me:
> 
> If you could change your orientation, so that you were attracted solely to adults, would you?
> 
> Please explain your reasoning either way - I have my suspicions as to what you would do (and they do not stem from guilt or anything like that), but my suspicions and reality are often different. 😉

Actually, this came up earlier:

[QUOTE=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.  
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Cesario]  
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.  
[/QUOTE]

(I’m sorry mine is so lengthy - I was trying to convince him why it’s a good idea and how he might go about doing it.)

> [@supergoose](#):
>
> 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.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> 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.

I hope he comes back and addresses it further, as well as your other posts, **Meatros**. I agree with **Guin** , you’ve done an excellent job articulating the problems with his proposal which is all the more admirable because of the effort involved in responding to his posts. Thank you for that. I’m very interested to see how he responds.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/763 "2009-10-14T19:43:41Z")

</div>

> [@supergoose](#):
>
> I hope he comes back and addresses it further, as well as your other posts, **Meatros**. I agree with **Guin** , you’ve done an excellent job articulating the problems with his proposal which is all the more admirable because of the effort involved in responding to his posts. Thank you for that. I’m very interested to see how he responds.

I missed that response of his actually. To tell you the truth, I was expecting him to say that he would change his orientation because it would be easier and he would have the ability to actually act on his attraction.

He doesn’t appear to be ashamed of his attraction - he feels there is nothing wrong with it - but I was curious to see if he felt it was a burden since he cannot act on it.

Thanks for the words as to the efforts. I think our conversation is wrapping up though as I don’t think there’s much more to say. He’s done a better job at defending his position then I would have thought (because of my preconceived biases towards pedophiles), especially considering the inflammatory nature of the discussion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/764 "2009-10-15T06:26:20Z")

</div>

> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#):
>
> Ceserio, you missed my point 100%… Those developmentally delayed adults view sex the way CHILDREN do! You say that there are some kids who can handle sex …but when you look at developmentally delayed adults who are at the same emoitional-social-developmental level as a kid…meaning they are essentially a kid that way, there’s no way in hell that a kid functioning that way could even understand the concept of sex the way adults view it!  
> I have quite a bit of experiance with MR and other developmentally delayed adults…they are always " My boyfriend kissed me on the lips! Are we taking things too fast?" Kids view sex the same way a developmentally delayed adult views it!

My point is, just as there are adults who ought to be on the oposite side of the line they are currently placed on, like the ones you describe, there are children who are also on the wrong side of the line. My proposal is to move those outliers on both sides of the line into their proper categories.

> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#):
>
> Ummmm NO. They aren’t fixtated on females the way that pedos are fixtated on kids.Pedos are fixtated on kids in an extreme Asperger’s Syndrome/ extreme paraphillia way. They don’t care about the child as a person…but rather as a potential sex toy.

I just love how you’re telling me what I think and how I feel. :rolleyes:

> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#):
>
> And Guni…RIGHT ON!!! Pedos are so self centered that they’ve managed to convince themselves that kids want it. It’s ONLY about THEM and their pleasure and their oregasm.

If that were all it were about, why bother with the self-delusion? There seems to be a bit of a logical snag in your mischaracterization.

> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#):
>
> Oh an for those who are advocating a lower AOC…sorry but teenagers are still developing in so many ways. It feels good to be all " rah rah rah…teens are mature enough to have sex with an older person…but fact of the matter is that teens (even many older teens) are still learning about romantic relationships.  
> Heck I know a girl who thought she was hetro up til she graduated high school…then she met a girl and felll in love in college.  
> Heck tons of twentysomethings are still learning abt realtionships…right after college kids who you’d thought would be togehter forever had broken up…

Seems to be a black mark against the age of consent, actually, that so many people are being authorized to have sex when they aren’t ready for it.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> No it’s not - not if you wish to have a rational position. An argument must be valid **AND** sound in order to be rational. Consider this:
> 
> All men can fly through walls  
> Socrates is a man  
> .: Socrates can fly through walls.
> 
> The syllogism above is valid, but not sound.

I am familiar with the concept.

The point is, whatever the truth value of “there exists some child who possesses the mental abilities to provide meaningful consent”, the proposal is a useful tool due to the corresponding statement “there exists some adult who does not possess the mental abilities to provide meaningful consent”.

Neither of these statements is particularly revolutionary, and I find them both far more likely than their “there exists no” inverses. Would you agree?

I believe these are the only points in dispute regarding truth values.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Of course not - but you should be aware that adults ARE authority figures to children.
> 
> Also, I don’t think my kid is in danger.

They are if they’re treating every adult they run across as an authority figure.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> The onus is not on me, as I’ve explained. As to an argument - the argument that is on the table is yours, not mine. I haven’t really presented one, so your dismissal above is…well, odd to say the least.

My issue here is your claiming that you have more to present, but failing to do so. What other reason would you have for not presenting it than you being concerned that it won’t be as effective an argument as you are claiming it is?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> We’ve established that your argument is valid, but the soundness is suspect. You seem to refuse to support your argument, which tells me that you can’t.

Once again, which of the premises you codified do you believe has not been adequitely defended? Let’s see if we can’t resolve whatever lingering issues you’ve got here.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I’ve already presented things you cannot/have not adequately responded to - your chest beating here doesn’t help your case.

Please repeat them here, as I believe I have no way of knowing which of my responses you found to be inadequite.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Are you suggesting that children fake birth certificates or that people get suckered into believing that a 10 year old is actually 18?

Both can and do happen. The minor in question usually isn’t 10, but the specific age is hardly relevent.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I’ll have to ask you to clarify the second half of your post here.

Are you familiar with the concept of [Theory of Mind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind)? It’s examined in requirement 3 of the proposal.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> You don’t believe that there is such a thing as physical knowledge? When someone learns to ride a bike, what type of knowledge is that?
> 
> I’d call it physical. There is a difference between knowing the mechanics of an act and actually knowing the physicality of the act. This isn’t knew, by any means, btw.
> 
> When someone learns how to deal with heartbreak, what type of knowledge is that?
> 
> I’d call it emotional.

What possible relevance could muscle memory have to the subject of consent? Emotional knowledge is examined in requirement 4.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Yes, your proposal actually **comes with an age line** , even though you adamantly deny it. You’ve admitted it yourself - there are certain ages that cannot even take the tests.

No one is restricted from taking the test on the basis of age. Period. Why do you keep insisting on something that simply isn’t true?

Yes, there will be some ages at which no individual happens to pass the test, but that isn’t an age line. Are you clear on how I’m using the term “age line”? Maybe that’s where the misunderstanding is coming in.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> As to good intentions - it’s to prevent harm. As to good results - children are not psychologically or physically abused (without punishment).

HA!

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Really, the case is open and shut.

Because you say it is.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> You wish to challenge the case, but so far all you’ve presented is hypotheticals and nay saying. You have no test cases, you have no solid refutations of the current knowledge.

What “current knowledge”? There is no “current knowledge”. There’s a lot of “conventional wisdom” and “common sense”, but no “current knowledge”.

I’ve gone looking for this evidence of universal harm. Found examples that disprove the universal assumption, but no evidence of universal harm.

I’ve gone looking for evidence of universal incompetence. Found no meaningful definitions for the competence minors supposedly universally lack, so I formulated a definition of my own. So far, we haven’t been able to run a test study, but numerous individuals indicate a wide range of expectations after reading the requirements. You among them.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Yet you have the audacity to say that you’ve covered everything?

I’m still waiting for someone to provide me with something I haven’t covered.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Then there is no reason for the test. So yes, it is a win-win.

There’s no reason to test something because you assert without evidence or reasoning that it is false? And you accuse me of failing to back up my points?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> You keep saying this, but you need to actually defend it. As to your point about slaves, unless you are admitting that they were not on par mentally with their slave holders then you have no case. Remember, you’ve admitted that children are not on par mentally with adults. In short, unless your argument is that adult blacks are the mental equivalent of children, your analogy fails.

You’re not familiar with the concept of an analogy, are you? I should point you to the Colbert sketch on Jesus, the Witch and the Wardrobe some time. Hilarious piece, I might add.

The point is that if the arguments of the slave-holders weren’t acceptable, then the same arguments applied to children aren’t any more acceptable.

It’s a bad system, and no human being ought to be subjected to it. Of course, just as blacks were considered subhuman, plenty of people now would make the arugment that children are pre-human. Doesn’t really change anything.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Not in the way you are taking it, no, I’m not. I’m familiar with diminished capacity cases where the person is subject to juvenile detention or mental wards.
> 
> I think they should be held liable - sent to a mental ward - yes. They are not safe to be on the streets.
> 
> I’ll ask you again:  
> _So you see no difference in a murder committed by a fully reasoned adult killing someone by hitting them in the head with a shovel and a murder committed by someone who was not mentally able to comprehend that hitting someone in the head with a shovel would end their life?_

There is an age in common law, below which a person is not subject to criminal prosecution due to their presumed inability to understand their actions. That is why, for instance, a toddler who pulled on a towel and cause a knife rack to impail someone and kill them is subject to neither murder, nor manslaughter, nor negligent homocide charges in either adult or juvinile court. No punishment at all.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I think that’s for your own reasons and that’s why you use rhetoric such as ‘oppress’.

Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure what you mean here.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> They are irrelevant to you because you don’t want to admit that they exist - yet it is clear that they do (which you also grudgingly admitted). Again, no 5 month old can give reasoned consent in any fashion. Ergo, the ‘heap’ or ‘age line’ exists. Your entire argument is flawed.

Once again, age is irrelevent to their ability to consent. The fact that when you group people by age, some of the groups happen to contain no members who can consent isn’t the same thing as there being an age line.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> An appeal to ignorance is not convincing. Again, the burden of proof is with you, **since you are attempting to change people’s minds**.

Once again, you don’t get it. If they can’t pass the test, they won’t pass the test. There’s no valid reason to prevent them from taking the test. I don’t need to prove that they can pass the test, they need to prove they can pass the test, and there is no valid reason for you to arbitrarily deny them the ability to do so.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Well that is convincing. Outside of your own emotional opinion, do you have anything to back that opinion up?

The fact that no age line is capable of doing its job. I thought I was being clear about this.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> So the question of rights comes down to if someone ‘wants to’. I don’t think you can get very far with this, but since it appears to be the subject of another thread I’ll let it go.

If someone doesn’t want to vote, they won’t vote. Simple self-selection does just fine on that one. We can continue this in the thread, thought.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Nonsense, age is tied in with physical/mental development. We age at specific rates, which is why no 5 month old attends Harvard, despite the education you try to give the 5 month old.

We all age at the same rate, because age is a simple measure of seconds ticking away on a clock. We develop and mature at differing rates, however, which is why age lines aren’t a good solution.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> You do need to prove it if you want any one to actually take it seriously. As to putting words in your mouth - I was telling you want you should do in order to argue your case effectively, I was not putting words in your mouth and I don’t see how you can construe what I said as doing so - but since you seem to be unfamiliar with certain things (such as what constitutes an ad-hom), I’ll let this further transgression slide.

I have no need to prove that most children under any age are anything, since none of my arguments are predicated on that. Is it a difficult concept for you to understand that I don’t need to defend points I’ve never made, and which have no relevence to my arguments?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> So an act that occurs from the physical act. How do you determine the harm done based on societies reaction (since it is ‘demonstrable’)?

Looking at a non-sex-negative society would be one way to isolate the variable.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> What argument do you think I’m making, Cesario? This is bizarre, since all we have been discussing is **your argument**. You are **deflecting here**. Also, I’m not asking you to prove a negative, unless you are suggesting there are no studies. Do all the studies point to harm?
> 
> I’ll ask again:
> 
> \*Also, can you point me towards any studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm? \*
> 
> If there are **no such studies either way** , then from where can we get a basis for whether such encounters would do no harm or not?

If there is no evidence that there is harm, there is no reason to restrict rights on the basis of the assumption that it is there.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Are you actually arguing that fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm because there are no studies to show that **they don’t**???

If there is no evidence that there is harm, there is no reason to restrict rights on

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Remember, the **onus is on you** because you want to change people’s minds. **The burden is on you to demonstrate your claim that these sorts of encounters do no harm**.

Appeal to tradition, much?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Okay, then I won’t take your position seriously and nor will society.

Because, of course, you are society… :rolleyes:

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Maybe according to you, however as have been demonstrated through this thread, damage does occur. You are the one suggesting that there is a qualitative difference between the scenario you are proposing and the ones that the studies have suggested.
> 
> Ergo, the onus is on you - again - to support this qualitative difference.

I can prove that sex between adults is psychologically damaging too, if I don’t bother to take consent into account when I’m assembling my studies and just throw rape victims in as though they were the same thing…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/765 "2009-10-15T06:28:51Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> What argument am I presenting, Cesario? I am suggesting that society should stay as it is. You are suggesting it should change, ergo you need to support your case.
> 
> You cannot and therefore you depend on an appeal to ignorance, yet you claim it’s pathetic.
> 
> Here’s something you need to grasp, we are not merely arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin. We are not arguing about what clothes you should wear. We are discussing the behavior of society and you, in particular, have been advocating for it’s change.
> 
> Instead of advocating for it’s change, you chicken out and declare victory because you cannot reasonably argue for the abolition of age lines.

I am operating under the position that the default position for a society to take is freedom. That to restrict the freedom of any citizen, society must demonstrate the harm that is done by providing that freedom. No one disputes the harm done by murderers, for example, and that is an example of a freedom that is restricted i the name of harm. If we can’t demonstrate that consensual sex is harmful, society has no business outlawing consensual sex.

I think this might be our fundamental disconnect.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> No, you clearly aren’t. If you were willing to provide evidence then you would have presented a 2 year old who was able to take your test.

That straw man’s putting up quite a fight, isn’t he? Might be a good idea to restrict your demands for proof to things I’ve actually said.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Shoot, you would have presented positive evidence that your test works, that there are “fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm” (your major contention), and so on.
> 
> You cannot because there aren’t any.

That first sentence doesn’t work. I think you conflated two sentences in the editing process, but I can’t be sure. Can you clarify?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I’ve reduced you to ridicule and false victory.

Oh please. If you have an argument, put it forward. If you don’t bother to argue your side of the issue, there’s little I can do but claim victory.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Cesario, you are asking for an actual change, are you not? This isn’t just an intellectual exercise - my initial assumption about your reason for being here isn’t correct, is it?
> 
> Seriously, because if it is - that this was all just an elaborate game - then tell me.
> 
> Otherwise I’m not the one who needs to ‘win’ here. You do, and you need to win by more then just mere assertion. You need to actually be convincing, which you aren’t.

The fact that you aren’t convinced doesn’t actually make my arguments not convincing. This would seem to be an instance of _you_ declaring false victory.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> What studies are those? Are they in this thread?

No, not in this thread. I’ve read a good deal more than I’ve saved, after all. If you can explain to me why these studies are relevant to this argument, I’ll track one down for you, but for the life of me, I can’t place the relevance.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> If there is a reason to believe that this might be probable, yes, actually.

The fact that you’re dating her is reason to believe that it might be problematic.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> This is what your case boils down to, an appeal to ignorance. You are begging the question.

No, just refusing to prove a negative. Try to keep up.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I think this may be because you are defining ‘harm’ out of existence and disqualifying what is presented as harm.

Take a look at this thread for just one example. Sixteen pages of people shouting at me, trying to shut me up, telling me to go curl up and die, and occasionally making threats on my person. Yet not one post spared to present a single study showing this universal harm. None even purporting to show it. Either we have a very unmotivated group of people here, or they tried and couldn’t find one. Which do you think is more likely.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> So you haven’t actually done in due diligence to prove your belief then?

Do you understand the concept of due diligance?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Then prove that a 9 month old could give consent. Provide some positive evidence that a 1 year old is able to give consent by passing your test. You can start by giving a hypothetical if you like. Or are you just going to bluster about and declare victory?

Do you believe that this test is a sufficient definition of meaningful consent? Yes or no. If yes, then the procedure for providing such evidence would be as simple as administering the test, right? So, why bother finding examples when we can just use the test on anyone who thinks they’re ready to prove it one way or the other?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> You ‘realize’ this, do you? Interesting.

Took me a while, but I did eventually manage to pick up on your obession with the concept after a bit of repetition, yes.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> My point is that while you seem focused on the grain, any rational individual will recognize that there are heaps in which you are putting those grains - despite how much you wish to deny them.
> 
> You can attempt to say that people who hold to heaps are ‘incompetent’ and that there position shouldn’t be taken seriously (an ad-hom), but if you wish to be rational, you need to demonstrate that there are no heaps. You need to demonstrate that a 5 month old can ‘bust out of his heap’, for instance.

I need to demonstrate no such thing, because I’m not putting them into “competent” and “incompetent” heaps based on age. I’m putting them into those heaps based on their performance on the test.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I’m sorry, but do you believe that a teenager constitutes someone under the age of 10?

No. Teenagers are human beings age 13-19. Was this unclear to you?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I see the advantage to your test, I believe I’ve already said this - but I do not see an advantage to it for people under 10.

I do. It’s crystal clear to me what the advantages are for everyone, even those who can’t pass it. Why you seem to assume that only people who pass the test gain any advantage by its existence boggles the mind.

If we’re using a sane system for doling out rights, we have a valid answer to give people when they ask why they aren’t afforded a certain right. That clears up resentment issues and prevents the kind of rigid “because I said so” thinking that this thread is demonstrating so effectively.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I think there are ‘age lines’, as I’ve pointed out.

No, there are groups of people who can pass, and groups of people who can’t pass. That some age groups will have no individuals who can pass is not the same thing as an age line. Again, I don’t think you understand what I mean by the term “age line”.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I think that your test is fine and that it should be administered at a somewhat arbitrary point - say puberty. Yes, you might miss an amazing prodigy, but you will cover far more.

That’s actually quite close to the original plan, run a test group, figure out what ages people are generally likely to pass it, and give a subsidized test in the schools at that grade level. The ones who want to take it before that point are allowed to do so, but they have to go to the testing facility rather than having the test come to them.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> My focus on your age of attraction is that it’s a convenient point to attack your argument from since it contains ‘age lines’ that could not give consent. I would think this was clear, but you seem to be misconstruing my position.

Again, there are no age lines. There are groups of people of the same age who would be highly unlikely to pass, but that is not justification for denying them access to the test, and just as it is not justification for denying their consent if they do take the test and pass it dispite expectations.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> If no nine month old could pass the test, then what is the _reason_ for administering the test?? What’s your support for arguing that they should take the test?
> 
> Why give them the test if no 5 month old could?

If they can articulate that they want to take the test, there is no valid reason that they shouldn’t. Are you under the mistaken impression I’m suggesting mandatory testing of every human being?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> As to discounting the possibility entirely - with the knowledge we have of physiology and development, it’s currently impossible for such a developed child to exist.

Our knowledge is imperfect. Plenty of reason to let the outliers try to prove our assumptions wrong.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I see no reason to administer the test wantonly - please provide a reason.

To prove to the individual requesting to take the test that they aren’t actually mentally competent. Half the point of this proposal is to give people something to point to when they do the whole “you aren’t ready for X” thing. Otherwise, the minor will assume (rightly) that they are being denied for arbitrary reasons, and will be less inclined to listen.

That is, of course, besides the basic civil liberties/human rights issue.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> As to this hypothetical person who passes it - I see no reason to believe that such a person could exist.

Denying the hypothetical. Poor form.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> How will the test determine this for a 5 month old?

When they are unable to answer any of the questions due to being preverbal, they will fail the test. It’s really quite simple. Ability to communicate was originally requirement 1, but it was determined to be redundant, and dropped because it was confusing people.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Also, again, I don’t see any reason to subject them to the test. Just because none will pass doesn’t mean they should take the test.

And just because you assume they will fail doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to try to prove your assumption wrong if they so chose.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Okay, strip all context away from all situations, see if that helps your case.

Hormones were a losing argument from the start, and you knew it.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Relevance? My point is that the changes foster an interest. Yes, other things can foster it as well. Lying adults do not change this.

Lying adults prevents people from getting a meaningful sex education when they ask for one. Pretty much puts the lie to the idea that everyone after puberty meets this requirement.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I forget that not everyone is familiar with certain concepts in philosophy. When we talk about knowledge there are several things we can mean.
> 
> We can talk about factual knowledge - ie, Washington is the Capital of the US. We can talk about physical knowledge - what it is to know how to ride a bike. Physical knowledge involves more then factual knowledge because it includes things like qualia and muscle memory and such.

Once again, what the HELL does muscle memory have to do with consent?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Yes, now please answer the question:
> 
> _Would these classes be available for those children that wanted to learn the material, or would they be mandatory?_

I have no intention of elminating mandatory sex-ed classes that already exist. The ones my proposal is discussing are simply avalible.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> ‘infancy’ is an age range. No need to try again.

“Preverbal” is the relevant part of that phrase, not “infant”.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I guess it’s not fairly standard as you previously said then.

Standard procedure, not standard ability. Was that somehow unclear when I said it before?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Fair enough - I hope the idea of conceding when you rationally should (such as the age line points I’ve made) rubs off on you.

If only you’d actually done that instead of requiring me to declare it myself…

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> If no one under 5 months can pass the test, then isn’t that an age line?

NO! Why is this so hard to understand?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Shoot, can anyone under 5 months TAKE the test?

There is no reason to deny them the oportunity to try if they so desire.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I can’t think of a reason why a 5 month old SHOULD take the test and you have consistently failed to give one!

Because I don’t have one, since I don’t see it as likely a 5 month old will desire to take the test, there’ll be no need to administer it. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of my position, I think. I’m not demanding eveyone of every age be tested. I’m demanded no one of any age be denied access to the test if they want to take it. There’s a very important difference that I think you’re overlooking.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/766 "2009-10-15T06:31:07Z")

</div>

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> If they are interested in sex, especially with adults, then why would there be a lack of exposure to STDs?

The hypothetical suggested multiple five year olds, suggesting that they’re going to be fucking eachother rather that an unknown third party. My advice was based on that.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I think this could be a result of an equivocation (by me, unfortunately). You stated “there would be no juvinile punishment at all”, which I took to mean you were suggesting that the juvenile would simply be let go - but that’s not necessarily the case.
> 
> Your entire point is that you don’t need ‘age lines’, but the fact seems to be that they are there. The test you suggest is useful, but I do not think it does away with age lines that are present. Yes, there is some gray areas in terms of the heaps (the age range) - so one could argue that the boundary is fuzzy and exceptional individuals should be recognized - but the majority of the heap should be also recognized.

By testing everyone who wants to be tested, you DO recognize both groups.

> [@Freudian\_Slit](#):
>
> This all seems kind of hypothetical. What’s the point of speculating on a sex test for kids so young? No parent is going to allow their kid to have sex with an adult, much less take a test for that purpose.

There is no parental consent requirement in the proposal.

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> You’re missing the pervert’s point:
> 
> He can groom kids and teach them to memorize the correct answers

You can’t pass a test on having a theory of mind using this sort of cheating. As to the parts you can memorize the answers for, that would be what we in the educational business call “studying”.

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> since he doesn’t require any parental consent at all. Look at the rules.

Parental consent was deliberately left out, for much the same reason it’s a bad idea for abortion. If the child can pass, there’s no reason the parent has any business in his/her sex life. If the child can’t pass, there’s no change in the child’s status, so nothing the parent needs to deal with.

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> He also loopholes in children who are currently being raped as exempt from having to take the test.

Where is this?! Point this one out. Now. If what you say is true, that loophole needs to be closed post-haste.

Considering how much of that I wrote, I’ve 100% certain that it isn’t in there, and you’re just making shit up, but on the off chance that I’m wrong, I want this pointed out to me. Immediately.

> [@Fenris](#):
>
> He also loopholes the idea that it’s ok for people who fail the test to rape children who haven’t taken the test.

Actually, you might be mistaking the part where I close that loophole for something introducing that loophole. Read that section over very carefully.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Here’s the problem I see:
> 
> Cesario’s argument, while problematic, also makes some sense. It seems to make sense for those who wish to engage in sexual acts to be aware of what that entails - a test could be used to determine this. The problem - as I see it - is that he wishes to extend this “right” to people of all ages, as though people of all ages are equal (or even could be). I do not feel this should be the case, since children do not have the same mental facilities as adults, they are not fully developed, etc.
> 
> To compound this, Cesario has a person investment in this argument; ie, he could theoretically get what he wants if enough people find his argument compelling. He could have sex with a hypothetical child. This is an utterly revolting idea for many reasons that I won’t get into here.
> 
> Now, Cesario’s desires have **nothing to do** with the soundness of his argument. You can want pigs to fly until the cows come home, but your wishes do not bend reality to make it so.
> 
> To step further back, the question seems to revolve around the idea that adults have different privileges/rights then children and should this be the case? Cesario would, undoubtedly, argue that, no, children and adults should not have different privileges/rights due to the mere fact of their age.
> 
> I don’t think anyone would object to this position on the face of it - a person’s age is merely a number - what people object to (and rightly so) is that children of particular ages have varying mental abilities. That age connotates a specific level of development. The reason why we don’t treat a 5 year old child the same as we treat an adult is not because the child is **5** - it is because at the age of 5 the child has not developed the cognitive skills an adult is expected to have. They are not aware of responsibility, of needs, of a whole host of different things.
> 
> Are there outliers; are there children who are more mature then what their age would connotate? Yes, within certain boundaries. For instance, some 16 year olds are perfectly mature enough to live on their own, to be held responsible for their actions, etc, etc. I would argue that no 5 year olds are in the 16 year old’s position though. With what we know of biology, it’s simply not possible (logical possibility aside) for a 5 year old to be the mental equivalent of a fully functional and reasoning adult. So it does make sense to have some age lines recognized, since they are there to begin with.

Recognizing the probabilities is a far cry from what you are proposing: disregarding the rights of anyone who doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of who can consent, regardless of what they do to prove your assumptions wrong.

I recognize the probabilities, but I also recognize that I am a fallible human being, and as such, my assumptions about who can and can’t consent could be wrong. This is especially true when you go from the general case to the specific case.

The point of testing everybody who wants to be tested is, in part, the recognition of that limitation in both myself, and in others (yourself included).

There is no compelling reason not to allow someone to take the test if they so chose. If you’re right and no five year old can pass, then no five year old will pass, and no harm will have been done. If you’re wrong and there is someone who can pass who is then denied the right to prove it, harm has been done in the form of denying someone a legitimately deserved right. My way harms no one. Your way harms people you assume (without any evidence) don’t exist.

You talk a lot about heaps, so let’s try an analogy. You have a bunch of marbles, half red, the other half blue. The marbles are arranged such that the boundry between the two is a sine curve. Someone comes along with a piece of rope, pulls it taunt and wants to know where he should draw his line to most effectively separate the red marbles from the blue ones.

Someone tells him to put it directly between the troughs and peaks of the curve. This method leaves some marbles of either color on the wrong side, but it’s the best straight line for separating them.

You decide that the best way is to put the line at the troughs so there will be no red marbles on the wrong side of the line.

Then I come along and tell him to let up some slack on his rope and weave it along the sine curve that serves as the boundry in order to put every marble on the right side of the line.

The first person is society, who puts the age of consent at or around 18 years. You are the one suggesting that we put a line at the point where everyone under it is sure to be unable to consent (incidentally leaving a lot of people who really can’t consent out in the cold and open prey for the unsrupulous or unobservant). I suggest we use the actual most accurate solution and reject the paradigm that we need a straight line.

I hope this has made things more clear, rather than less clear.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> I also wanted to say that Cesario’s goal is to convince us - to sway opinion and undermine society. The way he is going about this is utterly unconvincing, seeing as, at best, he is basically asking us to prove him wrong. I think he’s entirely missing the point - if his goal is to convince us.

My goal is to convince the general you. The specific you is irrelevant. I think that might be part of the problem to, people assuming that I must convince them personally if I’m to be considered successful. Tom made the same mistake.

> [@aldiboronti](#):
>
> Hey, **Cesario** , why not go fuck midgets and give us all a break?

I’m not attracted to midgets. That’s a different fetish. (Although, to be fair, the girl I’m dating did manage to miss the mark for that classification by only a few inches.)

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Hm… I was commenting on his overall discussion behavior, in terms of methodology. As to the specifics, with regard to AoC and societal reaction - I see those as two different things. I think it’s possible to change the societal harm without eliminating AoC laws.

What mechansim would you propose to eliminate the social harm while maintaining an age of consent? As attending to the social harm is my primary goal, I’m eager to hear any suggestions you might have towards that end. This is not sarcasm, but genuine interest.

I believe that the eliminating the age of consent is a necessary step, and the single most effective one towards that goal, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an interest in other steps. Take, for instance, better sex-ed in the schools.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> It seems to me that there are legitimate age lines and as such, the AoC laws make sense. We could argue whether they should be adjusted, of course.

There is nothing legitimate about drawing a line in the sand. It doesn’t matter where you draw that line, it’s still an artificial construct.

> [@Mosier](#):
>
> I didn’t have the emotional development of an adult even at 22 years old. Does that mean my wife raped me? I was certainly able to “consent” to sex much earlier than that.
> 
> I don’t think laws against pedophilia are about rape, or consent. They’re about protecting kids from adults who want to abuse them. Nobody would prosecute anyone if two ten year old kids sneaked out of the house and had sex, even though neither of them are allowed to consent to sex. I can certainly imagine scenarios in which an adult can have sex with a kid without coercion, but that doesn’t make it any less creepy.

Being creepy is not a valid reason to make something forbidden. Also, if it isn’t about consent, then people have been misrepresenting the issue for about a century now…

> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#):
>
> Moiser exactly!!! There ARE grey area scenarios…I still feel kind of oogie that I was in love with a girl who was a teenager. (granted I LOVE Hannah dearly and she was very mature for her age…but still…so many people I know have changed so drasticly emotionally (and relationship skills wise) from when they were teens)  
> Hell even with the fact that some teens are mature enough to have a romantic relationship with a twentysomething, there are still PLENTY of cases where a twenty-something dude has a young teen girl as his girlfriend so he can take advantage of her. (ie the girl is kind of “doofy” about what she can and can’t do in a boyfriend-girlfriend reationship)  
> We can debate on and on about “consent” but the fact of the matter is that pedos are predators. They THINK that kids can consent. But seriously…ALL the pedos care about is THEIR orgasm and THEIR pleasure.  
> A honest to god romantic realtionship between a kid and an adult?  
> What I’m picturing sounds like some sort of weird SNL skit.  
> Kid" Oh, I love this new PlaySkool toy! You know Saturday Morning cartoons? …prattles on about various and sundry kid stuff  
> Adult " _I want a beer_/some pinot gringo…starts thinking about adult stuff.  
> It’s not a mutually consening relationship. It’s an adult taking advantage of a little kid! A common theme on pedo boards is kids “innocence”  
> They are taking advantage of that “kids’ innocence!”!!! That’s just so wrong on so many levels.

Seems to me the RMSC would be a significant advantage to those teens, since they would be protected by statutory rape law due to being provably incompetent.

> [@Lobot](#):
>
> I know this will sound like begging the question, but if a person really cared about the child, they wouldn’t be fucking them in the first place. The number of people who have suffered trauma from being molested as children should _at the very least_ stop someone who genuinely cared about the child from engaging in sexual intercourse with them.
> 
> That said, I’m sure there are a great deal of people who molest children who _think_ they care about them. However, I dare say that’s an extension of the delusion that also credits the child with a fully-developed sense of self.

You have noted that I’m celebate, right?

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Cesario - I realize that our conversation is rather long (the last post I had to break up because it went over the board limits) and I think we are getting to the point where nothing new will be said (I could be wrong), but a question occurred to me:
> 
> If you could change your orientation, so that you were attracted solely to adults, would you?
> 
> Please explain your reasoning either way - I have my suspicions as to what you would do (and they do not stem from guilt or anything like that), but my suspicions and reality are often different. 😉

I would not change my orientation. I am happy with who I am, and would not willingly change any part of my personality. Indeed, I would sooner die than accept such a change, even if I were to agree that the change was for the better. This is because my definition of “me” is my personality and experiences. To alter my personality (especially in terms of something so fundamental as sexual orientation) is to destroy “me”, and leave someone else in my place. Maybe someone happier or better suited to society, but fundamentally not “me”.

This is a philosophical viewpoint I hold, pretty much the closest thing I have to a religeon.

> [@Meatros](#):
>
> Agreed.
> 
> To be perfectly frank, you are right that there are developmental milestones and they do not correlate exactly with age. There are shades of gray, as I’ve said. I think the overwhelming majority of 10 year olds have not gone through puberty and do not have the knowledge or desire for consensual sex. I’d almost go so far as to say ‘all’, but for the sake of discussion I’ll grant the possibility that there could be an outlier out there - some genetic anomaly with a great intelligence.
> 
> Do we adjust the laws so that the anomaly can have sex earlier? What’s wrong with having the anomaly wait until they are older? I think that if the anomaly has such a strong desire for sex and absolutely must engage in the activity _right now_ then there might be other psychological issues involved.
> 
> So why not let them wait, even if they hypothetically could handle it at an earlier age? The only person I can conceivably view as being hurt by that arrangement is an adult pedophile - but if the pedophile can’t wait either, then what does that say about their relationship to begin with?
> 
> I think we are on the same page - I’m not sure that 18 is a sensible AoC, but I think it makes sense to have AoC laws.

By that logic, we should raise the age of consent to 90. That makes absolutely sure that no one who isn’t ready has it, and as you say, there’s no harm in making the people who are ready wait. And if they absolutely must engage in the activity _right now_ then that’s just a sign that they aren’t ready to handle it, now isn’t it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/767 "2009-10-15T12:26:16Z")

</div>

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> You can’t pass a test on having a theory of mind using this sort of cheating. As to the parts you can memorize the answers for, that would be what we in the educational business call “studying”

A) No–_you_ can’t pass the test, maybe,but then, you’re a diseased creep who wants to lure little children into bushes because you can’t deal with grown-ups. Anyway, that assumes your psychobabble is fact. People can be coached to answer at whatever level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, they can certainly be coached to pass the fact based test you proposed.

B) “WE” in the educational business?! Good fuck–you’re claiming to be in the educational field? What, as the poster boy for “Don’t take candy from creepy strangers like this guy” campaign?

Where is this?! Point this one out. Now.  
[/quote]

Stuff your demand up your ass, pervert.

> [@](#):
>
> Considering how much of that I wrote, I’ve 100% certain that it isn’t in there, and you’re just making shit up, but on the off chance that I’m wrong, I want this pointed out to me. Immediately.

Or else _what_, you goat-felching kiddie rapist?.

> [@](#):
>
> Actually, you might be mistaking the part where I close that loophole for something introducing that loophole. Read that section over very carefully.

I did–and it’s really clear that your so called loophole-closing is nothing more than window dressing–if you lie successfully to this group of people you get a free pass to rape more kiddies. See, “reading carefully” includes figuring the writer’s motives: since your stated motive is to rape toddlers, it’s pretty easy to see where you’re coming from.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/768 "2009-10-15T14:17:55Z")

</div>

Meh, at this point it’s just nitpicking the guy’s fantasy and him nitpicking the nitpicks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/769 "2009-10-15T14:26:27Z")

</div>

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I am familiar with the concept.
> 
> The point is, whatever the truth value of “there exists some child who possesses the mental abilities to provide meaningful consent”, the proposal is a useful tool due to the corresponding statement “there exists some adult who does not possess the mental abilities to provide meaningful consent”.
> 
> Neither of these statements is particularly revolutionary, and I find them both far more likely than their “there exists no” inverses. Would you agree?
> 
> I believe these are the only points in dispute regarding truth values.

Obviously I don’t agree - which was the whole point of my contention. I do not think it’s possible for a 5 month old to give consent. Logical possibility, btw, is different from real world possibilities/probabilities.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> They are if they’re treating every adult they run across as an authority figure.

Why is this necessary? It’s not - I would say on average the adults they run into they tend to treat as authority figures, regardless of whether they actually are or not.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> My issue here is your claiming that you have more to present, but failing to do so. What other reason would you have for not presenting it than you being concerned that it won’t be as effective an argument as you are claiming it is?

What are you talking about? What more do I have to present? This entire time I’ve been arguing against your position, not presenting one of my own. You are seeking for society to change, for opinions to be altered, for your position to be recognized by society as legal.

All I’m arguing is that your argument doesn’t hold up. You seem to be attempting to put other arguments or positions onto me - perhaps to ease the burden of your position?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Once again, which of the premises you codified do you believe has not been adequitely defended? Let’s see if we can’t resolve whatever lingering issues you’ve got here.

The idea that realism of a 5 month old giving consent. Also, as I pointed out, laws are meant to protect the masses - a hypothetical logical possibility isn’t constituted as being part of the masses. It’s not even part of a minority.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Both can and do happen. The minor in question usually isn’t 10, but the specific age is hardly relevent.

Specific age is relevant, since I’ve been arguing about categories (ie, heaps). Yes, “cheating” happens and it’s not clear how your system would prevent it. It’s also not clear why it is necessary to enact upon all children.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Are you familiar with the concept of Theory of Mind? It’s examined in requirement 3 of the proposal.

No, I wasn’t - I’ve read the article and it’s not clear that we have definitive tests for it.

“Whether children younger than 3 or 4 years old may have a theory of mind is a topic of debate among researchers. It is a challenging question, due to the difficulty of assessing what pre-linguistic children understand about others and the world. Tasks used in research into the development of ToM must take into account the umwelt—(the German word Umwelt means “environment” or “surrounding world”)—of the pre-verbal child.”

I’m also unclear between the link between this and self responsibility/consent. Can you please clarify?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> What possible relevance could muscle memory have to the subject of consent? Emotional knowledge is examined in requirement 4.

It’s not just muscle memory - as the knowledge of how to ride a bike necessarily includes the learning how to do so. I can know the definition of erection, of sex, of all of the above, but if I’ve never had an erection then there is something that is not known that is necessary for the experience. Now, some of that knowledge can only be obtained by going through the activity, but you can’t argue that all of it is.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> No one is restricted from taking the test on the basis of age. Period. Why do you keep insisting on something that simply isn’t true?

You misunderstand me - your proposal doesn’t explicitly state there is an age line, but the reality of the situation is that there is one. In other words, it’s implicit to your proposal since in order to pass the test you have to have been on this earth and your body has to have aged a specific amount. You have to have aged more then 5 months, for example, since biomechanics do not allow for a 5 month old to be the mental equivalent of an adult.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Yes, there will be some ages at which no individual happens to pass the test, but that isn’t an age line. Are you clear on how I’m using the term “age line”? Maybe that’s where the misunderstanding is coming in.

No, I’m not. It seems you are attempting to make a difference without a distinction.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Because you say it is.

Well, you certainly haven’t presented anything that establishes a sound reason for all people to be able to take the test, since it’s clear that some cannot even take the test.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> What “current knowledge”? There is no “current knowledge”. There’s a lot of “conventional wisdom” and “common sense”, but no “current knowledge”.
> 
> I’ve gone looking for this evidence of universal harm. Found examples that disprove the universal assumption, but no evidence of universal harm.
> 
> I’ve gone looking for evidence of universal incompetence. Found no meaningful definitions for the competence minors supposedly universally lack, so I formulated a definition of my own. So far, we haven’t been able to run a test study, but numerous individuals indicate a wide range of expectations after reading the requirements. You among them.

Who is asking about **universal** harm? The question of laws refers to the safety of the majority.

As I pointed out, not everyone is unsafe to drive with a BA of .09 - but the laws are in place to protect the majority from those people who are unsafe to drive with such a BA.

Again, in order to support your position you need more then **negative evidence** - pointing out that such relationships don’t harm every member involved simply isn’t enough - you need **positive evidence** that such relationships are actually good, productive, and do not harm those involved.

So far, you haven’t presented any. Your entire argument seems to be based on an appeal to ‘prove me wrong’ (ie, begging the question).

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I’m still waiting for someone to provide me with something I haven’t covered.

You haven’t covered any positive evidence for your position. Start there. Show that such relationships with 10 and under are healthy and productive and produce no harm in those involved for the majority of the cases.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> There’s no reason to test something because you assert without evidence or reasoning that it is false? And you accuse me of failing to back up my points?

I thought I was pretty clear - if they could not take the test (due to lack of cognitive development), how can they logically pass it?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> You’re not familiar with the concept of an analogy, are you? I should point you to the Colbert sketch on Jesus, the Witch and the Wardrobe some time. Hilarious piece, I might add.

I’m quite clear with the concept of analogy - where I stumble is when someone tries to present a bad analogy and they claim it’s a good one.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> The point is that if the arguments of the slave-holders weren’t acceptable, then the same arguments applied to children aren’t any more acceptable.

The point is that the arguments of the slave holders were unsound - the premises factually wrong (ie, slaves brains are not more cognitively impaired then their owners). The argument that person X should not be able to give consent because of their mental status _IS_ applicable to children because is physiologically true; a 5 month old’s brain is not cognitively developed enough to give informed consent - nor can it be because of the stage of development.

This is not the equivalent to slaves, since a slaves brain is cognitively developed enough AND it is developed enough. In short, you could teach an adult slave about consent, responsibility, and all that and the slave would be able to understand. You could not do the same with a 5 month old.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> It’s a bad system, and no human being ought to be subjected to it. Of course, just as blacks were considered subhuman, plenty of people now would make the arugment that children are pre-human. Doesn’t really change anything.

You are ignoring the fundamental distinction that I outlined above - unless your argument is that blacks are the mental equivalent of children. This cannot be your argument.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Can you rephrase that? I’m not sure what you mean here.

I’m saying that you are phrasing it this way for rhetorical reasons.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Once again, age is irrelevent to their ability to consent. The fact that when you group people by age, some of the groups happen to contain no members who can consent isn’t the same thing as there being an age line.

Age in a vacuum is irrelevant - but when you consider that a child’s age is also relevant to their physical development, it _is_ relevant.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Once again, you don’t get it. If they can’t pass the test, they won’t pass the test. There’s no valid reason to prevent them from taking the test. I don’t need to prove that they can pass the test, they need to prove they can pass the test, and there is no valid reason for you to arbitrarily deny them the ability to do so.

What reason is there for them to take the test? They can’t even take the test, so how could they fail it?

You are proposing that they take this test - simply pointing out that there isn’t a reason not to is appealing to ignorance. How about this: It’s a waste of time to have them take the test?

You do need to provide a compelling reason for them to take the test. So far, you haven’t.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> We all age at the same rate, because age is a simple measure of seconds ticking away on a clock. We develop and mature at differing rates, however, which is why age lines aren’t a good solution.

I didn’t say that we all age at the same rate, I said that we age at specific rates - those rates are determined by our physiology (genetics, nurturing, etc). Age lines do not have to be definitive to be useful, they do not have to protect ‘all’, just ‘most’. However, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, even though there are shades of gray, there are definitive lines out there.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I have no need to prove that most children under any age are anything, since none of my arguments are predicated on that. Is it a difficult concept for you to understand that I don’t need to defend points I’ve never made, and which have no relevence to my arguments?

Your argument contains the implicit premise that all people can take the test. This is not true.

Again, you need a reason for children who can’t even take the test (cognitively) to take the test.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Looking at a non-sex-negative society would be one way to isolate the variable.

Has this been extensively studied?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> If there is no evidence that there is harm, there is no reason to restrict rights on the basis of the assumption that it is there.

I’m sorry, but the onus is on you here Cesario - you need to demonstrate that there would be no harm. You need to show us studies with ‘fully consensual sexual encounters’ where there was no harm.

You are the one seeking to change society, seeking to change public opinion, and all that. It doesn’t do you any good to appeal to ignorance here.

Again, _“If there are no such studies either way, then from where can we get a basis for whether such encounters would do no harm or not?”_

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> If there is no evidence that there is harm, there is no reason to restrict rights on

In short, your case rests on an appeal to ignorance. You **are** arguing:

_“that fully consensual sexual encounters with children produce no harm because there are no studies to show that they don’t.”_

You have no evidence:

1. That children can engage in fully consensual sexual encounters.
2. That even if they could engage in these encounters that there would be no harm.

Please provide evidence and studies to support these two points.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Appeal to tradition, much?

Maybe so, however please remember that you are supposed to be arguing against the traditional wisdom and appealing to ignorance is not going to cut it in the market place of ideas.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Because, of course, you are society…

No, I am not. However if you’d like to take a poll of this small cross section of society (the SD) to see how many people align with your idea that 10 year olds should be legally allowed to engage in consensual sex then by all means create the poll and put me in my place.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I can prove that sex between adults is psychologically damaging too, if I don’t bother to take consent into account when I’m assembling my studies and just throw rape victims in as though they were the same thing…

So are there studies with fully consensual sexual encounters with children that produce no harm or not?

If you’ve got the studies, then present them.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I am operating under the position that the default position for a society to take is freedom. That to restrict the freedom of any citizen, society must demonstrate the harm that is done by providing that freedom. No one disputes the harm done by murderers, for example, and that is an example of a freedom that is restricted i the name of harm. If we can’t demonstrate that consensual sex is harmful, society has no business outlawing consensual sex.
> 
> I think this might be our fundamental disconnect.

I operate under that position to - the difference would be what constitutes a citizen that can give consent.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> That straw man’s putting up quite a fight, isn’t he? Might be a good idea to restrict your demands for proof to things I’ve actually said.

So then we both agree that 2 year olds and under cannot give reasoned consent? That they should not take your test?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> That first sentence doesn’t work. I think you conflated two sentences in the editing process, but I can’t be sure. Can you clarify?

Possibly true - I don’t remember.

I was saying: You have to present positive evidence that your test is adequate at determining consent and that children can engage in fully consensual sexual encounters that produce no harm.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> The fact that you aren’t convinced doesn’t actually make my arguments not convincing. This would seem to be an instance of you declaring false victory.

I clearly wasn’t declaring victory here. If you’d like to set up a poll to see if your arguments are convincing and to see if you can get a majority of SDers to agree that 10 year olds should be legally allowed to engage in sex, then by all means do so. I’ll eat humble pie if that’s the case.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> No, not in this thread. I’ve read a good deal more than I’ve saved, after all. If you can explain to me why these studies are relevant to this argument, I’ll track one down for you, but for the life of me, I can’t place the relevance.

Fair enough - the relevance is questionable.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> The fact that you’re dating her is reason to believe that it might be problematic.

Me in particular, or ‘me’ as in ‘any person’? If it’s the later, I’m not sure that’s good enough.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> No, just refusing to prove a negative. Try to keep up.

Play semantics all you like, at the end of the day, your position has no support outside of (possible) negative support.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Take a look at this thread for just one example. Sixteen pages of people shouting at me, trying to shut me up, telling me to go curl up and die, and occasionally making threats on my person. Yet not one post spared to present a single study showing this universal harm. None even purporting to show it. Either we have a very unmotivated group of people here, or they tried and couldn’t find one. Which do you think is more likely.

Nonsense - that is because of your position, not your evidence. People are not shouting at you and all that because they lack evidence necessarily (some may, some may not), they are acting that way because your position is widely outside of the mainstream.

As to your dichotomy, I think the obvious is the third position - most of the people here aren’t even trying to engage in this issue with you. They aren’t discussing it, they are repulsed by it and do not want to address it on an intellectual level at all.

I’m uncertain why the bar is at ‘universal’ harm, btw, can you clarify?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Do you understand the concept of due diligance?

Yes.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Do you believe that this test is a sufficient definition of meaningful consent? Yes or no. If yes, then the procedure for providing such evidence would be as simple as administering the test, right? So, why bother finding examples when we can just use the test on anyone who thinks they’re ready to prove it one way or the other?

For the sake of argument, yes, the test can provide evidence for consent. No the procedure for providing such evidence is not as simple as administering the test - since it’s clear that not everyone can even take the test, much less pass it!

In short, how do you determine whether or not a 1 year old could even hypothetically give consent?

I fail to see any reason what-so-ever to administer or even consider administering this test to a 1 year old. Why should we?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I need to demonstrate no such thing, because I’m not putting them into “competent” and “incompetent” heaps based on age. I’m putting them into those heaps based on their performance on the test.

So you refuse to recognize that a collection of all 5 months old in the ‘inability to give consent’ column constitutes a definitive age line?

That seems to be your issue with reality - not mine.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/770 "2009-10-15T14:27:29Z")

</div>

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> No. Teenagers are human beings age 13-19. Was this unclear to you?

It was unclear to me that you believed this since you apparently think that my position was that your test is of no use what-so-ever and could not be used with teenagers.

You were attempting to construct a false position for me to hold - I pointed out the false assumption (that children under 10 constitute teenagers), now you are getting snarky with me.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I do. It’s crystal clear to me what the advantages are for everyone, even those who can’t pass it. Why you seem to assume that only people who pass the test gain any advantage by its existence boggles the mind.

Probably because that’s not what I assume, obviously. I assume that there are clear age-related lines that can be reliably used to determine who should be able to have access to the test and who cannot. It’s _not_ crystal clear to me why a 5 month old should even be considered here.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> If we’re using a sane system for doling out rights, we have a valid answer to give people when they ask why they aren’t afforded a certain right. That clears up resentment issues and prevents the kind of rigid “because I said so” thinking that this thread is demonstrating so effectively.

That’s fine - but it doesn’t justify the system for a 5 month old.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> No, there are groups of people who can pass, and groups of people who can’t pass. That some age groups will have no individuals who can pass is not the same thing as an age line. Again, I don’t think you understand what I mean by the term “age line”.

You are just being obstinate here. The ‘groups of people who cannot pass’ because they cannot take the test are all under 10. This is a distinction without a difference.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> That’s actually quite close to the original plan, run a test group, figure out what ages people are generally likely to pass it, and give a subsidized test in the schools at that grade level. The ones who want to take it before that point are allowed to do so, but they have to go to the testing facility rather than having the test come to them.

Was that in the proposal you quoted in this thread? I honestly don’t remember this portion.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Our knowledge is imperfect. Plenty of reason to let the outliers try to prove our assumptions wrong.

Show me the outliers. Further, should we make laws based on the outliers? Should legal BA levels be adjusted so that it takes into the consideration that some outliers who can function with a BA above .08 should be allowed to drive while intoxicated?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> To prove to the individual requesting to take the test that they aren’t actually mentally competent. Half the point of this proposal is to give people something to point to when they do the whole “you aren’t ready for X” thing. Otherwise, the minor will assume (rightly) that they are being denied for arbitrary reasons, and will be less inclined to listen.
> 
> That is, of course, besides the basic civil liberties/human rights issue.

How would it prove anything to the individual who not only doesn’t understand the test, but doesn’t understand what mentally competence means? Who would this test actually prove the results to?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> And just because you assume they will fail doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to try to prove your assumption wrong if they so chose.

How would a 5 month old even consider whether to take the test or not?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Hormones were a losing argument from the start, and you knew it.

? I’m saying that the are a pertinent factor, you are argue as though I’m saying they are the only factor - hence my comment on context. Your response here is completely confusing.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Lying adults prevents people from getting a meaningful sex education when they ask for one. Pretty much puts the lie to the idea that everyone after puberty meets this requirement.

?

I’m not saying that everyone after puberty meets this requirement? I’m saying that puberty is one of the avenues that foster interest in sexual relations. I agree that adults lie and all that, but I don’t see the relevance here. I don’t actually think you are clear in your last sentence.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Once again, what the HELL does muscle memory have to do with consent?

So you think that the actual physicality of the action, the parts involved and all (how they feel to the person, how the functioning of them feel to the person, etc), bears no part in reasoned consent?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I have no intention of elminating mandatory sex-ed classes that already exist. The ones my proposal is discussing are simply avalible.

Okay.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> “Preverbal” is the relevant part of that phrase, not “infant”.

According to you, perhaps, but obviously not according to me when I wrote _“then isn’t that an age line that could be drawn”_. Also, you realize that ‘infant’ actually refers to the latin meaning unable to speak, right?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Standard procedure, not standard ability. Was that somehow unclear when I said it before?

Obviously, since you referred to the ability to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Remember, you wrote: “The words “yes” and “no” seem to be fairly standard…”, my point was that this was not necessarily true. You seem to agree by pointing to point 4, yet here you are questioning whether or not you were clear.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> NO! Why is this so hard to understand?

Because the indication is that it is - you seem to be fighting tooth and nail for a hypothetical that there is no evidence is even physically possible.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> There is no reason to deny them the oportunity to try if they so desire.

So can any take the test?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Because I don’t have one, since I don’t see it as likely a 5 month old will desire to take the test, there’ll be no need to administer it. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of my position, I think. I’m not demanding eveyone of every age be tested. I’m demanded no one of any age be denied access to the test if they want to take it. There’s a very important difference that I think you’re overlooking.

Possibly so - but I think it’s ridiculous to allow a group of people who cannot even take the test to potentially be able to.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> The hypothetical suggested multiple five year olds, suggesting that they’re going to be fucking each other rather that an unknown third party. My advice was based on that.

I’m still not sure why there would necessarily be no STDs to worry about. Shoot, the test for consent that you are suggesting does go over safety and such things, at least if i recall correctly - so wouldn’t these consensual 5 year olds be familiar with such things?

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> By testing everyone who wants to be tested, you DO recognize both groups.

But one group is already recognized, the group that consists of those that cannot take the test; ie, 5 and under.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> Recognizing the probabilities is a far cry from what you are proposing: disregarding the rights of anyone who doesn’t fit your preconceived notion of who can consent, regardless of what they do to prove your assumptions wrong.

Prove my assumption wrong then - all you have to do is find the hypothetical 5 month old that is the mental equivalent of an adult. You don’t even have to do that, actually, you have to show that it’s remotely physiologically possible for such a child to develop.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> The first person is society, who puts the age of consent at or around 18 years. You are the one suggesting that we put a line at the point where everyone under it is sure to be unable to consent (incidentally leaving a lot of people who really can’t consent out in the cold and open prey for the unsrupulous or unobservant). I suggest we use the actual most accurate solution and reject the paradigm that we need a straight line.

You are assuming that I see no value in your test - I’ve repeatedly said that this isn’t the case. I see value in it, to an extent. I see no value in potentially allowing consent for people who fall within certain age line (‘heaps’) - say 5 years old and younger (or 10, or I’d probably even go so far as we could establish such a line with what the psychological mainstream has determined about cognitive abilities).

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> My goal is to convince the general you. The specific you is irrelevant. I think that might be part of the problem to, people assuming that I must convince them personally if I’m to be considered successful. Tom made the same mistake.

Yes, I realize that, I’m talking about generally, not specifically. In fairness, I admit I could be totally wrong in my appraisal of what constitutes ‘convincing’ to the public at large.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> What mechansim would you propose to eliminate the social harm while maintaining an age of consent? As attending to the social harm is my primary goal, I’m eager to hear any suggestions you might have towards that end. This is not sarcasm, but genuine interest.
> 
> I believe that the eliminating the age of consent is a necessary step, and the single most effective one towards that goal, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have an interest in other steps. Take, for instance, better sex-ed in the schools.

I don’t know - I think it’s possible because societies mores and norms are constantly in flux. Society, usually, changes well before the laws change, which indicates to me that the specific law (ie, AoC) isn’t the relevant factor. Frankly speaking, I don’t think changing the AoC laws would be all that effective - I think better sex-ed would be a more powerful step and potentially a necessary first step. You’d need public support first, IMO. Then again, I’m not an expert or anything.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> There is nothing legitimate about drawing a line in the sand. It doesn’t matter where you draw that line, it’s still an artificial construct.

If they aren’t based on anything, maybe, but the age lines are based on developmental stages of the general populous - and the specific ones I’m talking about don’t seem to be able to contain any outliers.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> I would not change my orientation. I am happy with who I am, and would not willingly change any part of my personality. Indeed, I would sooner die than accept such a change, even if I were to agree that the change was for the better. This is because my definition of “me” is my personality and experiences. To alter my personality (especially in terms of something so fundamental as sexual orientation) is to destroy “me”, and leave someone else in my place. Maybe someone happier or better suited to society, but fundamentally not “me”.
> 
> This is a philosophical viewpoint I hold, pretty much the closest thing I have to a religeon.

Interesting reaction - not what I thought. I assumed that you would change based on the idea that you would then be able to, more easily, find a partner.

> [@Cesario](#):
>
> By that logic, we should raise the age of consent to 90. That makes absolutely sure that no one who isn’t ready has it, and as you say, there’s no harm in making the people who are ready wait. And if they absolutely must engage in the activity _right now_ then that’s just a sign that they aren’t ready to handle it, now isn’t it?

No, not by that logic, since my logic was based on the general, not the outlier.

However, I would say that if someone couldn’t **control** their sexual impulse and they had to engage in the activity ‘right now’ that is a sign that they aren’t ready to handle it. It’s a sign that they are possibly dangerous.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/771 "2009-10-15T14:30:00Z")

</div>

With that (finally) said, I think at this point my contribution is done. It has been interesting Cesario, but very time consuming (not either of our faults, mind you, but this last response took me over two hours - I can’t imagine how much time it’s taken you). I will leave you with the last word.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/772 "2009-10-15T15:01:29Z")

</div>

Dropping in to thank \*\*Meatros \*\*and others who have maintained a level head in argument against **Cesario**. He has, one hopes, been shown that his arguments are not getting any traction (or any traction of consequence anyway) among sensible people but that it’s because they see defects with his premises and conclusions and not just because it drives them into blind fits.

This is because the visceral \*“aaarrrghhh spITsnORt pedophile grrraaahhh kiLLbuRN’im!!!” \*reaction many people affect is not useful, and only allows the subject to to reinforce the self-view as victim, or assume that the opposition is merely an unthinking instinctual reflex. (Which is not to say that a hard grabbing by the lapels and calling out is not useful to drive home the point at times. Just not blind rages.)

OF COURSE adults seeking to have actual sex with actual _prepubescent children_ is wrong (mere feelings or fantasies don’t faze me as long as they remain that) and a sensible person should easily understand this is so, and that **it is different from doing it with a hot 15y/o, and getting shafted by the legalisms of the AoC**. The developmental stages of a human mind are not mere social artifices.

As of the current time and for long into the foreseeable future any theorizing about how to “empower” prepubescent kids to agree to sex with an adult will be seen as a discourse on how to enable the pedophile to feel it may be legitimate to act on his/her urges, rather than seek out therapy/treatment to control, redirect or avoid them. What, you say, if you were to achieve some sort of way to verify consent in a child as well as you do it with an adult (and brain development issues are probably an insurmountable factor there)? As things stand, in regular adult-adult sex between nominal peers who should know better and can call one another out on it, you still have to worry about situations where one of the parties presumes intent and consent and then it turns out wrong and it all ends in tears. We don’t want to make THAT an “assumed risk” in a relation of such inequality and vulnerability as adult-preteen, so the answer is, for long into the foreseeable future, that such pairings should NOT happen, period.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/773 "2009-10-15T15:22:01Z")

</div>

> [@JRDelirious](#):
>
> OF COURSE adults seeking to have actual sex with actual _prepubescent children_ is wrong (mere feelings or fantasies don’t faze me as long as they remain that) and a sensible person should easily understand this is so,

Adults fantasizing about having sex with children \*should \* concern us as the thought is often father to the deed. At the very least an adult with such thoughts should avoid all contact with prepubescents, for his own sake as well as theirs. If in a moment of weakness he were to give his lust full rein he would be destroying two lives at once.

But I forget. **Cesario** has a will of iron and is above such precautions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2009, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/774 "2009-10-15T15:39:23Z")

</div>

> [@aldiboronti](#):
>
> Adults fantasizing about having sex with children \*should \* concern us as the thought is often father to the deed.

Bullshit. I have thoughts about all kinds of women all the time, some of whom I am often in close proximity to for some length of time. Thus far, I’ve successfully managed to restrain myself from raping _all_ of them. Why should a paedophile (especially a non-exclusive paedophile with a girlfriend) be any different?

You know what? **Cesario** ’s right. There’s a whole bunch here who can’t seem to tell the difference between paedophile and child molester, or even recognise that the difference exists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/775 "2009-10-15T15:43:05Z")

</div>

> [@MrDibble](#):
>
> Bullshit. I have thoughts about all kinds of women all the time, some of whom I am often in close proximity to for some length of time. Thus far, I’ve successfully managed to restrain myself from raping _all_ of them. Why should a paedophile (especially a non-exclusive paedophile with a girlfriend) be any different?
> 
> You know what? **Cesario** ’s right. There’s a whole bunch here who can’t seem to tell the difference between paedophile and child molester, or even recognise that the difference exists.

I think it’s different because you can have sex with those women without it being rape. You can’t just go up to them and fuck them but you can buy them drinks, suss out interest, flirt, etc. And if they think you’re hot and are amenable, you can do the wild monkey dance. But if you’re a pedophile, yeah, people are going to assume that your interactions are suspect. Because there is no flirting or lead up for a kid. I think a lot of pedophiles might be very eager to see stuff that isn’t there. **Caesario** talked about speaking to a woman with a “very attractive 4 year old” and saying stuff like the 4 year old girl seemed to want him all to herself and stuff. And a lot of people told him he was deluded.

I think if a guy were into rape fantasies, that would be fine. But if almost every one of his posts were on rape or some aspect of BDSM, people might be skeeved, or just plain bored, and might ask him to cut down. Which did in fact happen in one case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/776 "2009-10-15T16:04:30Z")

</div>

> [@aldiboronti](#):
>
> Adults fantasizing about having sex with children \*should \* concern us as the thought is often father to the deed.

So, how long have you been at war with Eastasia?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/777 "2009-10-15T16:08:44Z")

</div>

Fucking amazing. I suggest that it would be wise for someone with pedophile tendencies to avoid kids and suddenly I’m advocating thought crime?

Tell me again why that’s not a sensible thing to do. I’m all ears.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/778 "2009-10-15T16:13:07Z")

</div>

Plus, what about the fact that a pedophile (or even an adult heterosexual) can be creepy without doing anything illegal? **Caesario** has said repeatedly he doesn’t do this but he seemed to think the attractive four year old was into him. So I’m not really that assured by his…assurances.

We had a thread about a teacher who noticed guys staring at young kids at gym class/recess who would take off when teachers would open up their phones. Yeah, you’re not raping or touching them, but do you really want to be that guy who stares at kids and makes other people think you’re a creep?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/779 "2009-10-15T16:14:30Z")

</div>

Of course you’re not _advocating_ thought crime. You’re just “concerned” about it. How do you feel about mass murder and torture and such, because I know some writers who’ve thought about it at length and, y’know, father of the deed and all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/780 "2009-10-15T16:22:07Z")

</div>

> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Of course you’re not _advocating_ thought crime. You’re just “concerned” about it. How do you feel about mass murder and torture and such, because I know some writers who’ve thought about it at length and, y’know, father of the deed and all.

And, of course, thinking about mass murder and torture and debating them seriously is precisely equivalent to getting a hardon when a three year old climbs into your lap.

I’m still waiting though to hear why you think it so outrageous that a man who feels such desires should take care not to be alone with small children. Perhaps you feel they could have a useful debate on the subject?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/781 "2009-10-15T16:38:22Z")

</div>

> [@aldiboronti](#):
>
> And, of course, thinking about mass murder and torture and debating them seriously is precisely equivalent to getting a hardon when a three year old climbs into your lap.

Now you’re just moving the goalposts.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m still waiting though to hear why you think it so outrageous that a man who feels such desires should take care not to be alone with small children. Perhaps you feel they could have a useful debate on the subject?

And moving them further. I don’t care what Cesario fantasizes about. Heck, his fantasies are not automatically any more dangerous than someone fantasizing that the crying brat would shut the fuck up if only someone shook them hard enough.

You said a stupid thing. Own up to it or not, as you choose.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=38)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=40)