That’s not what I’m talking about, though. He may not have control over those circumstances, but he has control over what he says.
Sez you. How do you know what kind of control he has? He is subject to powerful urges that he cannot control. He desperately wants to be normal, and sees other people’s sexuality as being accepted, so he’s asking that he be normalized.
I personally believe people have far less control over what they believe than we like to think that they do. Most people do not put in the sort of work it requires to tear out their belief systems, examine them and then reconstruct them so that they can understand them fully. This kind of epistemological self reflection is actually pretty rare. You probably live within the mean so you don’t need to really question whether or not your actions are under your control.
Don’t know about anyone else, but whenever I watch a sperm cell penetrate an egg cell, I get a stiffy.
I confess to having fucked my wife on several occasions with the desire of violating an innocent ovum. 
Well, there’s this, from the Registration Agreement –
If he in fact advocates child molestation that would seem to be a clear violation.
He chose to sign up here and chooses what topics he posts in. His impulses toward children may be hard to control, but message board posting is not some kind of basic human need.
Right, but did you read LunaticFringette’s post? We’re not talking about choosing what you post, but choosing what you believe. Maybe he really believes it’s ok.
There is some historical precedent, such as the Sperm Warriors of New Guinea. However, such rituals are accepted by their culture, which makes a HUGE difference.
As I stated in that thread, this is precisely what makes the pediophilic mindset so dangerous. Cesario is misinterpreting the child’s interest as sexual interest, while the child is grossly ignorant of the adult’s actual intent. A situation like that is a recipe for disaster.
fuzzypickles Agreed. I have a good nose for sussing out when something is off about a person. I hope that I retain that ability throughout my kids childhood. If someone touched my daughter I’d want to kill.
I can understand though, and I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but kids are open with their emotions in a way that adults are not. Cuddling with a small child is great. I love cuddling with my daughter it’s one of the warmest most emotionally satisfying experiences that I have had in my life.
It seems to me that the only difference here is a matter of a switch where you want to stick your dick in them. I do not have that drive, I am thankful that I do not.
I see your distinction, but I’m just not sure that an inability to control one’s sexual attraction isn’t necessarily something worthy of sympathy. I do think the comparison to insanity is useful because there’s varying degrees of sympathy for insanity as well. For instance, someone who has schizophrenia and hallucinates an imaginary world but never harms anyone gets sympathy. Someone else with schizophrenia that hears the voice of god that tells him to murder 17 children gets none and many people would say he’s a monster and other such things.
Everyone has inner demons, some substantially greater than others, but what differentiates people in how they receive sympathy is how they behave. I’m sure pretty much everyone in this thread has had an urge to do something that they or society would consider wrong, but I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that anyone deserves sympathy just for having urges. What about when one has urges to do morally neutral or even positive things?
But really, when it comes down to it, if someone has powerful urges they can’t control, regardless of what those urges are (sex, drugs, or something else), I think at a certain point it crosses the threshold of insanity. As I said in a previous post, I think what sets Cesario aside as different is that he clearly believes that the consent of someone aged 0-10 is fundamentally the same as someone aged 18+. If this is true, he most definitely has a skewed world perspect that very well could be insanity.
So, in this case, I really see it that his urges aren’t so strong that he can’t control them, and thus isn’t insane and he should learn to do a better job of it. Or he truly has some urges that he can’t control, and probably needs to get help.
“He didn’t kill her, he just raped her, so that’s not so bad.” Surely that’s not what you mean.
He took her home afterwards so that makes him . . . what, a considerate rapist? So he gets points for that?
Adults are responsible for what they do. Adults that have sex with children are wrong. Period. There is no gradation of wrongness, it’s just plain wrong. Anything else the adult did would only add to the inherent wrongness, not mitigate any of it by absence.
He’s NOT normal, and I am prevented by the sunshiney Pit rules from saying exactly what he is. If he can’t control having the urge to have sexual contact with children, he certainly can control whether or not he talks about it.
I understand some people are born with predatory impulses and that’s unfortunate. But I do expect some basic understanding that what they desire is predatory and that they should be ashamed of it and/or working against it. He’s asking to be “normalized”? He’s NOT normal, he’s perverted, and if he wants to be accepted as normal he needs to work on not being perverted. If he can’t do even that, he needs to at least keep people in ignorance as to the fact he’s a pervert, which means keeping quiet about it.
I really can’t articulate the contempt I have for this person. I feel like I need a shower just clean off from reading his posts.
He has been careful to put his postings in terms of a pedophile utopia where there are no legal or societal barriers to sex with children. He has noted that he lives by the laws of the United States and that includes that pesky one about not being a molester.
Could you explain your reasoning in more detail? I could be persuaded otherwise I guess, but I’m strongly on the pro-free speech side and so I have to disagree strongly here. He should be allowed to express whatever batshit crazy views he likes. It may even be a form of therapy for him that makes him less likely to act on them and molest a kid.
It’s not really a free speech issue. This is a message board, not Congress. Even free speech does not guarantee any kind of immunity to opposing speech.
Of course there is every right to ban him for whatever reason; what I take issue with is the idea he should refrain from expressing his views.
If anything it is better he express his views: would you let your kids anywhere near him now?
Well, we’re asking him to refrain from expressing his views at our figurative table, not saying he can’t take it outside somewhere.
And no, I would not let my kids (three girls, all in his target range) anywhere near him, so I guess I’m grateful, to that extent, that h’s willing to identify himself up front.
I wonder if he did so for the mother of that “very attractive 4-year old” he was hitting on.
He can say whatever he likes and I am by no means raising an argument against free speech. But he runs the risk that those who hear his free speech will react strongly against it, with contempt and disgust, as I do. He is entitled to say what he wants; he is not entitled to make people hear it, nor to dictate their responses if and when they do. My response is to consider a person who doesn’t realize the inappropriateness and fundamental wrongness of his impulses, to be far more sick than a person who does realize that wrongness and therefore does not defend it, discuss it, or tell anecdotes about it. He gets nothing from me but scorn.
There is a point at which tolerance becomes a negative, when we proceed as if in the name of Tolerance we should not name that which is evil nor raise our voices against it. Sometimes I think people around here keep their minds so open their brains fall out.
He didn’t say he was gay so much as compare bigotry against pedophiles as bigotry against gays – that the NAMBLA founders were being targeted by homophobic bigots, rather than those concerned with child molestors. In his sick, twisted mind, NAMBLA is about gay rights, not the rights of child molestors.
Dude is making my skin crawl…I don’t know whether to cry or vomit.
Rigamarole – go to hell. So it wasn’t “rape-rape”, as Whoopi Goldberg put it, I believe? So if I’m raped by someone I know, it’s not as bad as being raped by some stranger on the side of a road? Again, you can go directly to hell. Do not pass go, do not collect 100 dollars.
To be honest, I have more of a problem with your position than I do with his. I think that if we are going to discuss pedophilia I’d rather have an open pedophile telling us his views in the course of that discussion.
He’s right the age of consent IS sort of arbitrary, there is no reason to believe something magical happens at 18 that makes a person smarter and more with it than when they were 16. So there’s a fuzzy line.
Of course I think that 0-10 year olds are way beyond the fuzziness of that line which I would only say applies to older teenagers. But I think it’s cool that we have someone expressing such an unpopular viewpoint.
I get tired of the witch hunts around here where people gang up and try to stifle speech by haranguing people into shutting up about a minority opinion. It’s probably healthier for him and every kid he is around to hear constantly that it’s not ok, it should not be considered ok, and that he better not do anything.
Would you rather him go to a pedophile message board where other people agree with him and they can give each other positive reinforcement and encouragement?