# Cesario, you're awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973 "2009-09-29T14:48:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 44
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/862 "2009-10-21T06:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s not quite true – he said that the only reason a child may be harmed by it is because SOCIETY convinces them so, and that they are TOLD that they were abused. His idea is that children WANT to have relations with adults. > > He says that pedophilia IS exactly the same as homosexuality, that it is only treated as an illness because of “homophobic bigots”. (In fact, that’s what he said NAMBLA is all about – protecting a segment of the population from the bigots who think they are perverts.) Guinastasia…right on! We can debate this til the cows come home, but overall kids do not have the emoitional maturity to consent to sex acts with an adult. The adult in every case is taking advantage of the child. There is a REASON why pedos are attracted to kids with poor self esteem/ loners and the fact that they are so innocent! If they were attracted to the child, they’d be attracted to the mature ones…but I forgot…the mature ones wouldn’t be attracted to the pedos b/c they’d pick up the creepy vibe. > [@](#): > > If he had ever seen those girls who have been sexually abused as children and who try to “heal” from that by sleeping around with everyone on earth, (with no real connection with anyone) or who think that everyone is out for sex (and that fucks up interpersonal realtionship skills) > > Having been to college in the united states in the last decade and a half, amazingly I know a good number of both men and women who relate to sex with those actions who weren’t abused at all. Zerial…that doesn’t surprise me. A lot of college men and women still don’t understand the complexities of interpersonal realtionships. A lot of people think that they can get an “emotional connection” through sex. They have social issues/want to feel close to someone or whatever. Heck someone can be emoitionally healthy but be highly sexed… But what I mean by behavoir that is induced by sexual abuse/rape is extreme. For example my friend who was raped had a really fucked up attitude about sex. She would have sex with anyone with a penis to try to “heal” Didn’t even like the person…she just tried to have sex to heal (and she also had a ton of emotional issues…no friends so she thought that having sex would bring her closer to her fuck buddy) Another friend of mine said that he had a friend who was raped by her uncle, and she was always trying to get him into bed. I know another girl who basicly had sex up the wazoo trying to “prove” to herslef that she could control who she had sex with (molested and raped ) I only know of one girl who was molested who DIDN’T act out sexually. (but on the downside she picked really bad guys as partners) ---
**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 21, 2009, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/863 "2009-10-21T11:26:04Z")
Pffl. Anecdotes aren’t evidence. I was raped, violently, twice, as a child, and I am neither sexually disfunctional nor promiscuous. I also don’t have a string of bad relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/864 "2009-10-21T12:59:16Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Pffl. Anecdotes aren’t evidence. I was raped, violently, twice, as a child, and I am neither sexually disfunctional nor promiscuous. I also don’t have a string of bad relationships. Of the three people I know personally who were raped when children (two were 13 at the time and it was a gang rape in both instances, and one was a toddler (who was molested by a guy who got off on hurting people, and then going home and having sex with his wife), neither of them are promiscuous. They’re actually both significantly less promiscuous than average. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/865 "2009-10-22T04:59:36Z")
[![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX6dhhdJ7nE) After this guy got out of prison he has been spending much of his time trying to overturn laws against having sex with kids. He even states in the video that there shouldn’t even be any age limits when it comes to messing around with little kids. Such sickness… ---
**Author:** ![StarvingButStrong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/starvingbutstrong/32/335_2.png) [@StarvingButStrong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvingButStrong)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/866 "2009-10-22T05:13:32Z")
So, anybody watch Law & Order: Special Victims Unit tonight? Can someone really get a 3000 year sentence? ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/867 "2009-10-22T07:06:39Z")
Zeriel and Mr. Dibble…true. Ancedote doesn’t equate to data. I think actually in a lot of the cases the girls were emotionally stunted due to a developmental disabilty, or trying to “heal” from stuff like not having too many friends. I think it depends on the person. Like if a person gets really good intense counseling as well as relationship skill counseling, I think they’d be OK. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/868 "2009-10-22T13:42:46Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > So, anybody watch Law & Order: Special Victims Unit tonight? > Can someone really get a 3000 year sentence? I think the intent of those kinds of things (as well as “consecutive life sentences”) are to put a damper on the “early release for good behavior” stuff that happens automatically–even if you reduce a 3000 year sentence by 50% for model prisoner behavior, the perp is still in jail. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/869 "2009-10-22T18:11:45Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > And the mods ALREADY decide what topics are acceptable to debate and what topics are unacceptable; they just have declined to make that call in this case,\*\* despite the fact it is quite literally the most egregious case ever presented\*\*. (bolding mine) Hmmm…That’s merely your opinion. For instance, I always have been appaled by people who advocate for or otherwise support torture (which is generally illegal too), there have been plenty on this board, and they generally take less care of not “crossing the line”. Now, if someone is banned for stating that laws forbiding sex with children ought to be changed, I want people stating that laws forbidding torture ought to be changed to be banned too. I certainly find that equally heinous and distressing to read. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/870 "2009-10-23T05:26:12Z")
I > [@](#): > > think the intent of those kinds of things (as well as “consecutive life sentences”) are to put a damper on the “early release for good behavior” stuff that happens automatically–even if you reduce a 3000 year sentence by 50% for model prisoner behavior, the perp is still in jail. I know that the revidecism of sex offenders is relatively low. On the other hand, is the revidisim for pedophiles high? I would imagine it is, since all pedophiles are mentally ill, and they prolly don’t get the best mental health counseling in prison. I think maybe some pedophiles might be able to become disorentiated from their fixtation with proper counseling and treatment…Like someone said that they think that pedophiles may be confusing obsessive complusive fixtation on children with “love”/ “lust” Maybe if they were treated with a med that treats OCD issues, they might be able to become normal. Besides, pedophiles are dangerous. They do not see anything wrong with their attraction towards those who cannot consent. They are dangerously mentally ill. It’s almost exactly like…back when the story about the woman who was kept in a basement in Austria was coming out, they interviewed a sociopath who had kept a woman in an enclosed place to rape. When asked if he thought it was wrong to imprison someone like he did, he was all " Some people wear jewrely that keeps them prisonors" ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/871 "2009-10-23T07:01:25Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I wouldn’t rape them because they CAN consent. A lot of pedophiles tell themselves that just fondling or touching is okay because it’s not rape, though. And it’s not, even though it’s illegal and unethical. Sounds like a pretty thin justification to me. Considering that we’re talking about what you’d resort to if denied consensual partners. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > You’re right, it isn’t. Nice to see you acknowledging this. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > But adults are capable of informed consent, children aren’t. Define informed consent. Prove no child can ever be informed. Prove every adult is always informed. This isn’t that unreasonable a request considering the strength of the assertions you’re making here. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > You have zero chance of indulging your sexual fantasies under the conditions you have specified. See the difference? No. Even if I were to accept your premise, that would only put me in the position you would be in without access to consenting partners. And unlike you, my moral positions aren’t contingent on how convenient they are to stick to. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Rape is the only way you will ever achieve your goal. Still unclear on what my goal is, aren’t you? > [@aldiboronti](#): > > For all your protestations I wouldn’t trust you alone with a child for 5 minutes And I care about your trust why? > [@Fenris](#): > > And his attempts to change the legal definition of kiddie-rape to “Groovy mature toddlers just havin’ consensual fun with 50 year old deviants” doesn’t change the fact that it’s still kiddie-rape, regardless of what the law calls it. It’s certainly true that the moral quality of something isn’t derived from the law. Though that does pretty well shoot down any of your side’s arguments that current illegality intrinsically demonstrates that it’s immoral too. > [@Meatros](#): > > I know I said I’d give him the last word, but Don’t worry, I wasn’t expecting you to stick to that. > [@Meatros](#): > > it just occurred to me that I think Cesario is under the mistaken idea that **we have to convince him** of X, Y, or Z. > > He’s not going to have much success with this until he gets that out of his head. You have to convince me if you want me to shut up and agree with you. It seems a pretty simple proposition, all things considered. > [@Meatros](#): > > No, I was referring to the how he has been communicating with us. Prior to this, I had thought he was attempting to support his contention and rebut the rest. I had told him several times though out the discussion that he wasn’t arguing effectively since he was supposedly trying to **convince us**. I realized that although he said that was his intent, it really doesn’t appear to be. Indeed. I have no interest in a futile attempt at converting people who’ve made up their minds and refuse to so much as read my arguments, let alone comprehend them. Such individuals only serve in the capacity of a sounding board, whereby I get a hook to bring up certain of my arguments (considering how touchy the moderators have demonstrated themselves, I really can’t start my own threads on the subject to cover the arguments proactively). Meanwhile, their demonstrably poor arguments lend support to the idea that my arguments have more rational merrit. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’ll be frank - discussion on those topics do make me squeamish. It happens. > [@Meatros](#): > > I do not think that any of the children have a desire to have sex with him Natural side-effect of not putting myself in positions where I’m likely to be propositioned, I’m afraid. > [@Meatros](#): > > - I do not think he stands a shot of convincing anyone that a 5 year old could conceivably give consent. Considering that’s never been even remotely relevent to any of my arguments… > [@Meatros](#): > > Even he admits that such a scenario is unlikely even if it were hypothetically possible. I admit no such thing. I agree that there is almost certainly some point below which no one would pass an RMSC or similar exam, but I’ve said repeatedly that your or my **wild guesses** about where that point might lie has zip-zero-zilch to do with anything relevent to this converstation. I’ve expressly refused to provide you with such a guess precisely because I was sure you’d end up twisting it into something like this. > [@Meatros](#): > > As to the forum - he has a compelling argument for an AoC test, regardless if I feel that he’s made his case that AoC laws should be abolished. I’m glad to hear it. Considering this is the primary point I’ve been arguing, I don’t really see what there is to argue against after acknowledging this. > [@Meatros](#): > > I don’t think that pedophilia is ‘right’. I don’t feel that it should be legal. My personal feeling is that it is a psychological disorder - but in all fairness, I really haven’t read up on it and I don’t know much about it. The first thing you might want to familiarize yourself with is the fact that pedophilia reffers to a **thought**. If you want to start outlawing thoughts, let’s just skip straight to the inevidable violence right now. As to the psychological disorder thing, you might want to familiarize yourself with the defintion of a psychological disorder in general, and paraphilias in particular. You’ll find that in cases where the paraphilia does not cause distress in and of itself, but rather all such distress derives from a conflict with society, it doesn’t qualify for the psychiatric diagnosis. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > What the hell does this have to do with the thread? > > The fact is that in the past, we’ve had a lot of people banned for expressing much ideas than this one. Now, I personally don’t feel **Cesario** should be banned, however, I can definitely see WHY people feel that way. > > And I can see WHY people accuse him of getting off on this topic. I don’t think it’s just an abstract for him. No, I’m not simply dismissing the idea simply because of who is advocating it – **I’m against the idea of “youth rights” no matter WHO is proposing it.** However, he definitely has a biased agenda. _sigh_ I guess we’re destined to be enemies then. > [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > I feel compelled to make a distinction regarding child rape and child molestation. > > To those of you saying that you give Cesario the benefit of the doubt that he’s not raped and is not going to rape any children because it’s easy to not do it, like it’s easy to not kill someone. Yes of course it’s easy to not grab a little girl off her bike, not chuck her into your van, not drive to some secluded area and not rape her. I would say that I too believe Cesario when he say’s he’s not done that. That’s very big of you to admit that. I feel this has been a terrific breakthrough for you. > [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > But that’s the extreme severe end of the spectrum. I had a teacher in grade six who used to get the little girls to sit on his lap and put his arms around their waist. Then one hand would get just a little too low, or just a little too high. I personally watched him do this. That’s all it takes, just move one hand down a couple inches and you’ve fondled children. That’s what a child molester is. This teacher, and two others from the school, ended up in jail for fondling children at school. > > Do you think if someone like Cesario had a little girl on his lap and no adults around, that he would never ever ever, just let one hand go a little too low? > > People like Cesario can even convince themselves that it was just an accident, his hand just slipped. > > Saying he’d never hurt a child because all he has to do is not rape them is disingenuous because sexual abuse is way more than just raping babies. Hm, this is an interesting standard you’ve got here. Can you provide a definition of “a little to high” and “a little too low”? Maybe a clear definition for fondling which differentiates it from relatively standard practices like supporting small children with a hand under their butts when picking them up or helping them climb? Maybe one that doesn’t depend on the state of mind the adult was in when it happened? > [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > Anyway, I hope I’m able to make the point I’m trying to. That you’ll interpret any interaction I have with a child as molestation, so I might as well be required to starve rather than go to a grocery store where there might be kids present? > [@FloatyGimpy](#): > > And Cesario, I don’t read your coma inducing posts so don’t bother responding to me because I won’t even see it. Just because you’re willfully ignorant doesn’t make you exempt from criticism. I don’t give a shit if you read it or not, the criticism is coming anyway if only for the benefit of the audience. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > Bingo. But I’d change the cannibalism scenario to “someone who says he has long wanted to taste human femur, worked in a surgical unit, and thinks there should be a test given to people and if they pass, they can FEAST! People will be lining up to donate their femurs, seriously!”. While I’ve got no particular interest in eating people, I do think that ought to be considered a valid cause someone could donate their corpses to. Just like we currently let people donate them for medical training, scientific research, and organ donation. No reason we shouldn’t also be allowed to donate our corpses to people who want to eat the meat. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > He has done his gender no favors in the educational field. I have long advocated for male teachers in elementary and pre-schools and have felt that men are marginalized too often in the field regarding those age groups because of this (mostly) unfounded fear. He (and those other rare people like him) is the reason men have been so. It may not be “fair”, but society has decided that the risk of damage to children outweighs the slight to men. I’ve gotten no complaints from my students, fellow staff members, or parents. Honestly, the only one who had anything to complain about was me, since I only got into that position as a result of a bait-and-switch. I thought I was going to be running a tech support gig, not teaching a computer class. You want to find someone to blame for society being misandrist in regards to the educational system, look somewhere else. Maybe at the misandrist douches who are making these unfounded, unsupported insinuations against the whole of the male gender and using my kind as scapegoats. Just a thought. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > Thoughts may or may not be fathers to the act or crime. Sexual fantasy is just that… until it isn’t. If a Doper had started a thread about pedophilia, stressing that s/he would never act upon it, that s/he did obtain release in other ways etc, perhaps the conversation would have been somewhat different. The concept of pedophilia is a complex one, one that I am not apt to explore, but that I have no qualms about being explored strictly hypothetically, in an appropriate context. That is not this thread. > > **Cesario** did not do that, which is something his defenders haven’t realized or have realized and don’t care about, or have deluded themselves into believing that he did. To read (as much as one can, his posts are coma inducing) his posts is to sink deeper and deeper into his twisty rationalizations and intellectualization of this inflammatory issue. It is not enough for him to have these fantasies and thoughts, he needs approval or at least acceptance from us for them. Let me amend: he needs us to attend to them–negative attention is as rewarding as positive. Attending to them does legitimize the existence to some extent. > IOW, we are feeding a troll of sorts. Oh please. The only reason I ever engage on this topic is because some jackass somewhere makes an ignorant statement that needs to be corrected. Then it snowballs from there with more ignorant jackasses piling on making more ignorant statements that need correcting, and a few intelectually honest posters who actually want to learn asking reasonable questions that I would be remiss in not answering. Clear up the ignorant jackasses and I have no need to correct them. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > I would like to point out that AFAICT, there has been very little “burn him!” in this thread. A few posters early on called for his banning. Of course people are going to have strong reactions to this topic; there have been Dopers who have posted about their sexual abuse in their childhoods; there are Dopers who have children and are concerned that this could happen to them; there are Dopers who are engaged members of society who recognize the value that mores have, as well as other Dopers who want to challenge those mores. > Sexual abuse of children is not a dry stuffy topic to be relegated to an abstruse debate. This discussion has never been about debating “correctly” or about building proper arguments. It’s been a real conversation–oh, not TO\*\* Cesario\*\* or even involving him–he’s out in his own little perverted version of the NCLB “test” world-- but amongst all the other Dopers who have participated in the thread. I’ve noticed a sad trend towards ignoring the basic rules of debate and logic in favor of emotional knee-jerk reactions. I’ve just never considered that sort of ignorant, reactionary behavior something to be proud of. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Alternatively, you could always eat at Wendy’s. 😃 > Gosh, ya think? :rolleyes: > > By the way, **Cesario** mentioned upthread that he used to be an elementary school teacher. Not that I expect a straight answer from him, but I’d be curious to hear the story of why he no longer works there… Why wouldn’t I give a straight answer? The job was part of a college work-study thing I was doing while I was working on my degree. When I graduated, I moved on from the position into a career in my field. The parting was amiable on all sides, and I got some very nice recommendations out of the deal. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > After a 17 page thread, long and detailed responses from **Cesario** to a host of questions and much debate on the topic, I can truly say I have learned something - **Cesario** is awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile, isn’t he? I find it’s more psychologically stable than being a self-loathing, near-suacidal, emotional wreck. People who are more psychologically stable, and with fewer self-image issues tend to be less likely to have the impulse-control problems that lead to children being molested. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/872 "2009-10-23T07:02:34Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > YES. This exactly! Pedophiles’ thinking processes are EXTREMELY distorted. > "Oh it’s not REALLY rape. She (most of the time its a girl who’s abused) led me on (ala Lolita) " > Yes, its not full on “boom boom” intercourse rape…but it is STILL unwanted sexual abuse! It is an older person taking advantage of a little kid’s naitive. > Kids are TOO easy to take advantage of. And yes, there are adults who are easy to take advantage of, but overall kids are extremely easy to take advantage of… You might be surprised to learn how easy it is not to take advantage of other people. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Which is why pedophiles are attracted to them. They are easy to take advantage of! Do you really need me to start waxing poetic about the physical features I find attractive before you’ll take my word for the fact that it’s about the lack of secondary sex characteristics? I really don’t think anyone wants to read that, honestly. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Oh and Cesario…I think you think that there’s no such thing as a pedophile who acts on his desires. Where the hell did you get that idea from? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > There are a LOT out there. Even in that study you cited, it said that 20% of sex offenses against children were committed by pedophiles. > That’s quite a bit. Considering it’s twice the amount in the study I cited, you’re right that it’s quite a bit. Now, when you are ready to actually discuss facts instead of your self-serving lies, please feel free to continue along this line of argumentation. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > There ARE dangerous pedos out there. Yep, just less than there are dangerous non-pedos out there. 😉 > [@Zeriel](#): > > Uh, I don’t think he said any such thing–he said “Most child molesters are not exclusively pedophiles” and “he personally has not acted on his desires”. The former is borne out by the statistics, and the latter is essentially unknowable. > > What’s with the need to vilify him? So he’s not repentant about the contents of his own mind, big fucking deal. As long as he does what he says he’s doing–that is, not doing inappropriate things with kids–then what the hell reason do you have to make him out to be some kind of monster? > > And why the fuck does pedophilia in your mind have to be some kind of compulsion to abuse the helpless instead of a straight-up attraction to the physical form of a pre-pubescent? The ongoing conflation of “pedophile” (one who is attracted to kids) and “child molester” (one who inappropriately sexually contacts kids) when they’re in reality a Venn diagram seems to be at the root of 90% of the flaming idiotic hate around here. That seems likely. > [@Zeriel](#): > > Look at it this way: In reality, if every pedophile had **Cesario** ’s claimed self-control the world would be a goddamn significantly better place, because instead of whatever number of molested kids we’d have a bunch of people doing their damnedest to work for “children’s rights” and “emancipation” and failing because the majority thinks they’re crazy. I don’t know. I think with 20-33% of the adult male population all voting as a single block, we could make some rather significant progress on a number of youth-rights issues. Also, please don’t use the term “children’s rights”. That is an entirely different political concept, and one which I’m quite opposed to. The principle difference between “children’s rights” and “youth rights” is that the former is about protectionist restrictions on behavior and treating children differently from adults, while the later is about oposing that sort of paternalism and allowing children to function as independent human beings to the greatest degree possible. Children’s rights implements age lines, youth rights tears them down. Ultimately, I find children’s rights to be a rather orwellian term. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > \*\*Cesario \*\*supports pedophilia. He believes it should not be illegal. Consideing it isn’t illegal, I think I’m doing fairly well on that one, at least. 😉 > [@aldiboronti](#): > > A pedophile is, to quote the OED, “an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.” **Cesario** is a pedophile. Why yes. Yes, I am. I believe I’ve said as much before. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > As long as there are pedophiles around young children will be in danger from them. They can swear daily on a stack of Bibles 10 miles high that they wouldn’t harm a hair on the little cherubs’ heads, they still, because of their perverse desires, pose a threat to kids. Just less of a threat than those of you who lack said perverse desires. 😉 > [@aldiboronti](#): > > But no. According to **Cesario** ’s champions only actual child molesters pose any threat to children. Before they cross that line they are as safe with children as any other adult. Safer, actually. You did read through the mathematical breakdown, right? Do you need it reposted? > [@aldiboronti](#): > > It’s self-evidently preposterous, of course, but such is, or seems to be their position. Do feel free to correct me, Cesariophiles. No point in me speaking for other people’s opinions. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Killed? Of course not. As I said earlier, I’m not psychotic. > > Banned? I wouldn’t shed a tear. But then again, I’ve never shed a tear over anyone being banned, including \*\*Satan \*\*back in the day and he was a personal friend of mine. > > However, if the only thing he ever talks about is his … predelictions, shall we say … and the mods came to the conclusion that enough is enough and his one trick is no longer welcomed here … then, yeah, I’d probably toast to his (virtual) demise. > But that’s neither here nor there. I just don’t see the merit in discussing the situation with him. Not that I don’t think the discussions shouldn’t be had at all .. just not with him. It tacitly offers a benefit of doubt which, as I said, I’m not willing to offer him. If that’s a character flaw against me … I’ll accept it. Ah, so this has nothing to do with my arguments or the quality thereof, it’s just you having a personal issue with me completely void of logic or reason. Got it. So, did you want me to make a sock puppet who makes the exact same arguments I’ve made but doesn’t admit to being interested in kids? Seems like a dishonest tactic and a complete waste of both of our time to me. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Who’s called him a child molester? He IS a pedophile…he HAS refused to admit that there ARE indeed “active pedophiles” Meaning people who are attracted to children and who have convinced themselves that it’s OK to have sex/ perform sexual acts, inapropreatey touch children. I’ve rejected your bullshit defintion and your made-up term. I’ve never suggested anywhere that pedophiles were all fucking saints, you moron. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I honesty have a probem with the fact that he REFUSES to admit that he’s mentally ill. Pedophillia is a mental illness. I’m sorry…but it IS. Don’t meet the diagnosic criteria, I’m afraid. No marked (psychologically significant) distress or interpersonal difficulty, and haven’t acted on it. Without one of those, I don’t meet requirement 2 out of the three part definition of the mental disorder described in the DSM IV. Look it up sometime. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > If he had ever seen those girls who have been sexually abused as children and who try to “heal” from that by sleeping around with everyone on earth, (with no real connection with anyone) or who think that everyone is out for sex (and that fucks up interpersonal realtionship skills) And your anecdotes about rape victims are relevent in any way to anything how? Also, love the ignorant assertions about the kinds of people I know… > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Peodphiles do not have the best interpersonal relationship skills. That’s why they think that kids are “hitting on them” Actually, it was you who read into my story that I thought the girl was hitting on me. I just thought she was enjoying my company and was jellous of the attention I was paying her brother. The point of that story had nothing to do with four year olds hitting on me. It had to do with them not being creeped out by me. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > They are also predators who prey on the innocent. The reason they are attracted to kids is b/c they KNOW they can take advantage of them! Oh please, I’m quite confident in my ability to beat up and rape an adult woman just fine too. Could probably even play a bunch of mind-games and string together the sorts of lies that some of the sick fucks around here consider acceptable behavior in “normal dating” too. This has nothing to do with ability or confidence. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > That’s not quite true – he said that the only reason a child may be harmed by it is because SOCIETY convinces them so, and that they are TOLD that they were abused. His idea is that children WANT to have relations with adults. > > He says that pedophilia IS exactly the same as homosexuality, that it is only treated as an illness because of “homophobic bigots”. (In fact, that’s what he said NAMBLA is all about – protecting a segment of the population from the bigots who think they are perverts.) > > :rolleyes: Your lack of reading comprehension continues to be impressive. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Ah, but his specific paraphilia IS causing him significant distress. Not that I’ve noticed. The only distress I get from it comes basically from ignorant bigots like yourself, and I’ve fortunately long since gotten over caring what they think. Thus, mental disorder cured. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > He’s unable to form age-appropriate relationships with his peers, All of my existing age-appropriate relationships with my peers notwithstanding, I guess. :roll: > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > and he is socially shunned by all human beings who are privy to the nature of his sexual attraction. Actually, every single person privy to my attractions in real life has been nothing but supportive of me. And a good number of people online are likewise quite positive about it. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > He also has a pathological need to be the center of attention, to portray himself as a “victim of society” wherever he goes – but that’s probably just his core personality, and I’m willing to believe that **Cesario** would act like a sanctimonious, narcissistic jerk even if he _wasn’t_ a rapist of toddlers. Ah, so this is where the hostility is coming from. You’ve somehow gotten the mistaken impression that I’m a child molester. Let’s clear that up right now, then. I’m not. Glad we got the chance to clear up this little misunderstanding, and hopefully this will allow us to move on to more productive lines of conversation. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Guinastasia…right on! > We can debate this til the cows come home, but overall kids do not have the emoitional maturity to consent to sex acts with an adult. > The adult in every case is taking advantage of the child. There is a REASON why pedos are attracted to kids with poor self esteem/ loners and the fact that they are so innocent! > If they were attracted to the child, they’d be attracted to the mature ones…but I forgot…the mature ones wouldn’t be attracted to the pedos b/c they’d pick up the creepy vibe. You haven’t actually read the RMSC, have you? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Zerial…that doesn’t surprise me. A lot of college men and women still don’t understand the complexities of interpersonal realtionships. And yet, you continue to support an age line which allows such individuals to be taken advantage of on a regular basis. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > A lot of people think that they can get an “emotional connection” through sex. They have social issues/want to feel close to someone or whatever. Heck someone can be emoitionally healthy but be highly sexed… > But what I mean by behavoir that is induced by sexual abuse/rape is extreme. For example my friend who was raped had a really fucked up attitude about sex. > She would have sex with anyone with a penis to try to “heal” Didn’t even like the person…she just tried to have sex to heal (and she also had a ton of emotional issues…no friends so she thought that having sex would bring her closer to her fuck buddy) > Another friend of mine said that he had a friend who was raped by her uncle, and she was always trying to get him into bed. > I know another girl who basicly had sex up the wazoo trying to “prove” to herslef that she could control who she had sex with (molested and raped ) > I only know of one girl who was molested who DIDN’T act out sexually. (but on the downside she picked really bad guys as partners) Is there some reason you’re under the mistaken impression that your anecdotes qualify as evidence of anything in this debate? > [@Zeriel](#): > > Of the three people I know personally who were raped when children (two were 13 at the time and it was a gang rape in both instances, and one was a toddler (who was molested by a guy who got off on hurting people, and then going home and having sex with his wife), neither of them are promiscuous. They’re actually both significantly less promiscuous than average. This is consistent with what I’ve seen in a friend of mine, who was molested at some point before she was forming conscious memories. (She only knows about it due to being told after the fact.) > [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > So, anybody watch Law & Order: Special Victims Unit tonight? > Can someone really get a 3000 year sentence? You should see some of the child porn sentences they’ve handed out. The message with those is, “you’ll do less time if you actually rape a child”. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I > I know that the revidecism of sex offenders is relatively low. On the other hand, is the revidisim for pedophiles high? I would imagine it is, since all pedophiles are mentally ill, and they prolly don’t get the best mental health counseling in prison. Well, there’s no reason to bring little trivialities like “facts” or “evidence” in here when we’ve got your omniscient gut to go on. :rolleyes: > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > I think maybe some pedophiles might be able to become disorentiated from their fixtation with proper counseling and treatment… Doesn’t work out so well for the gays, and that’s pretty much the same treatment. (For the record, it really doesn’t work any better on pedophiles.) > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Like someone said that they think that pedophiles may be confusing obsessive complusive fixtation on children with “love”/ “lust” Define love. Define lust. Then we’ll be able to continue on this conversation thread. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Maybe if they were treated with a med that treats OCD issues, they might be able to become normal. Tell you what, how about you put together a study and let us know how that goes. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Besides, pedophiles are dangerous. Yep, just less so than you nonpedophiles. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > They do not see anything wrong with their attraction towards those who cannot consent. Got something to do with the fact that no one needs someone else’s consent in order for them to appear in a fantasy. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > They are dangerously mentally ill. > It’s almost exactly like…back when the story about the woman who was kept in a basement in Austria was coming out, they interviewed a sociopath who had kept a woman in an enclosed place to rape. When asked if he thought it was wrong to imprison someone like he did, he was all " Some people wear jewrely that keeps them prisonors" Care to translate the crazy-talk for those of us who aren’t insane enough to intuitively follow the ramblings of a lunatic? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/873 "2009-10-23T15:08:38Z")
You’re the one who’s fluent. ---
**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 23, 2009, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/874 "2009-10-23T16:02:57Z")
Look, everyone, Mr Outragier-Than-Thou is back! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/875 "2009-10-23T19:17:16Z")
> [@Cesario](#): > > I find it’s more psychologically stable than being a self-loathing, near-suacidal, emotional wreck. People who are more psychologically stable, and with fewer self-image issues tend to be less likely to have the impulse-control problems that lead to children being molested. 😛 Are those the only choices? (Isn’t this a logical fallacy?) ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/876 "2009-10-23T19:28:38Z")
Terribly interesting that the only replies Cesario will post are labyrinthine multiquotes peppered with snark. There’s no serious discussion here, folks. Best to ignore him. ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/877 "2009-10-24T05:48:54Z")
> [@](#): > > pedophilia in your mind have to be some kind of compulsion to abuse the helpless instead of a straight-up attraction to the physical form of a pre-pubescent? It’s not just a “straight up attraction to little kids bodies " MANY people can think " Oh little kids are cute” without it being a sexual attraction. Cesario…no you ARE mentally ill. The crazy dude in " A TellTale Heart" thought he was sane. Borderline personality people think they’re sane, lots of crazy people think they’re sane when they’re actually nuts. The fact of the matter is that pedophiles have an abnormal fixtation on children. It is NOT the same as a GLB orenitation. Their oreintation is a nautral outgrowth of nautral human realtionships (ie they realized they were gay when they fell in love with someone of the same sex) ---
**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 24, 2009, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/878 "2009-10-24T08:15:25Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Cesario…no you ARE mentally ill. …and your mental heath qualification is…? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/879 "2009-10-24T16:33:35Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > …and your mental heath qualification is…? Come on **MrD**! Throughout the years we’ve agreed much more than not on a myriad of topics, but I can’t believe you’re asking for “health qualifications” from some one that calls an adult with a sexual fixation on _babies_ ‘mentally ill.’ If that’s not sick, nothing is. Fuck this “discussion.” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/880 "2009-10-24T16:55:06Z")
And on page 18, this thread is still propelled forward by those that have been arguing that we should ban him so that he cannot discuss his proclivities on the Straight Dope. ---
**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 24, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/881 "2009-10-24T17:40:21Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Come on **MrD**! Throughout the years we’ve agreed much more than not on a myriad of topics, but I can’t believe you’re asking for “health qualifications” from some one that calls an adult with a sexual fixation on _babies_ ‘mentally ill.’ “Mentally ill” is a very specific accusation, is why. I agree the guy isn’t normal, and his paraphilia is undesireable to me. But if he has it under control, I wouldn’t call him “mentally ill”. I’m not defending his paedophilia, here, but like I said upthread, there’s a lot of ways to argue against it without lying or invective. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=43) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=45)