I’m not defending pedophilia, but I have to say, it’s not right to ban someone the way LadMirer (what a name) was banned.
First of all, he was stupid for giving himself an overt pedophile name; he could have discussed the matters without explicitly connecting himself with them. He shouldn’t have done that.
On the other hand, it’s fair to say that people are born pedophiles just like people are born homosexuals or heterosexuals. I don’t think it’s a choice. He was supposedly banned for talking about illegal activity, but there is a difference between being a pedophile (being attracted to underage boys) and actually having sex with them, the latter of which is illegal.
And even if he was talking about illegal activity, that’s not completely forbidden either. You’re just not supposed to talk about how you’ve been doing it lately or how you can get away with it. I thought it’s alright to talk about it in a general sense.
Disgusted as we all are by pedophilia and pederasty, I think it would have been interesting to have the perspective of someone who actually is an admitted pedophile. Just to see what they have to say about the issue. Most of us hate the idea of pedophilia but most of us don’t actually know anyone who is one, so even if we disagree with it I thought it might contribute to intellectual discussion to have one here.
After all, most of us are ignorant as to what it is like to be attracted to boys, and this board is supposedly about fighting ignorance. I’m not defending it, I’m just saying. It’d be like having someone who has actually been in combat, or who has actually been to Antartica, or who has actually participated in a bullfight—it’s an opporitunity to have a first-hand account of something most people are not familiar with. Therefore I think LadMirer should be allowed to be back on the boards, even though most of us hated him.
From what I can tell, I agree with you completely. Thoughts, feelings, emotions are not crimes. Acting on them sometimes is. If he wasn’t specifically discussing his own exploits with underage boys, I can’t see the reasoning for banning him.
I’m sure people will be along to kick our asses, but I stand firm: no matter how disgusted you may be that someone wants to have sex with children, you cannot accuse them of a crime or of victimising anybody until it comes out that they’ve actual acted on their desires.
On the other hand, though, and this is still speaking out of ignorance of the entire situation, I can see the administration’s desire to avoid a possibly very, very, very messy situation.
If I’ve jumped to any false conclusions in this post as a result of not knowing the whole story - mea culpa.
I think having an overt paedophile (if that is indeed what he was) with a listed e-mail contact is probably way too much of a potential legal liability for the Reader to tolerate – quite apart from any debate.
Personally, in theory I fully support the right of groups like NAMBLA to lobby for legal reforms that could benefit their members.
That I have profound doubts about their chances of swaying public opinion, nay, even a certainty that they will never make any inroads in that direction, has absolutely no bearing on that opinion.
Well, he was advocating illegal activity - basically the argument of the NAMBLA people, claiming that if it doesn’t involve violence, then it’s A-OK. Ignoring, of course, the issue of age of consent, among other things.
Plus he had some sort of advocate who just “happened” to be posting in the thread. I forget the poster’s nickname, but he signed one of his posts with something indicating that he was a mod on a board of that nature. So it might’ve been a small “board invasion” as well.
Based on past history most “Pedophiles are people too” threads have short life on this board. One of the major domos is very sensitive about ths subject, and besides it kinda/sorta falls into the board prohibition on topics that fall under the “Tell me why doing this illegal thing is really that bad” category.
I have no problems with his banning whatsoever. You’re attracted to a person because they’re who they are, not because they’re young. That’s about power and control, not love.
Discussion of paedophilia is not, in and of itself, a bannable offense. There’s a fine line somewhere in any discussion involving illegal activities, as to what we allow and what we don’t. In this case, the first post was about paedophilia, the screen name was an obvious pun, and the home webpage is a page advocating “boylove” and encouraging boys to come chat with people who love them.
This was a person with an agenda, and the agenda comes way too close to the illegality line for us to be comfortable.
I’m not sure why it would be so “interesting” to chat with a paedophile here, any more than with a rapist or a murderer. Yes, there’s a distinction between talking about something and doing it, but.
The comparison to homosexuality is not apt – homosexuality is not illegal.
Maybe if he’d posted about things that didn’t have to do with having sex with small boys for a while might have helped his cause. But pedalling your pedophilic fantasies in your #1 post wasn’t the smartest move. OTOH posting them as you #1000 post wouldn’t have have won him many friends either.
Quartz:You’re attracted to a person because they’re who they are, not because they’re young. That’s about power and control, not love.
That’s actually the one thing I had a semi-serious interest in asking about, but the thread got taken away before I could ask it. LadMirer revealed that he was sexually attracted to (although not sexually involved with) a 14-year-old boy, and that the boy knew about it and accepted it, and that the two of them loved each other. A number of the NAMBLA-type advocates who have wandered through here have made similar assertions, and seem to base a large part of their justification on the idea that the relationships they want involve genuine mutual love rather than rape or molestation.
What I always wonder is, so what happens when the boy grows up? Do you still love him? Are you no longer interested in a sexual relationship with him, but continue to be friends, or what? Seems to me that if paedophilia were just about two people of different ages who’ve fallen in love, it would hardly be an issue. They’d simply wait a year or two or three until the younger person reached the legal age of consent, and then they could have whatever kind of relationship they wanted.
But if it’s so important that the boy be in early adolescence, below the legal age of consent, and the “lover” will lose interest in a relationship as the boy grows up, then how is that genuinely about love?
On the other hand, we do get lots of people in here defending their not being sexually attracted to fat people or short people or Asian people or white people or small-breasted or small-penised (?) people, or people ten years older or younger than they are, or whatever. They resent (with some justice, IMO) being criticized as shallow or emotionally stunted just because their attractions are strongly dependent on certain physical characteristics. So does the pedophile have a similar right to argue that his “love” isn’t shallow or unhealthy just because he’s not attracted to adults?
I banned LadMirer and his buddy. I MIGHT have let LadMirer continue posting, but it was apparently a board invasion…I did some investigating and found that he was posting on a “boylove” board as well, with a post inviting everyone to look at the SDMB thread.
So why not at least give him the chance to change his homepage link and screen name? Or Ban him and delete the homepage but at least keep the thread for us to read?
::ok, just saw Lynn’s post on preview, nevermind::
If my attraction to a women is based on the physical characteristic of whether she’s holding a pan of veggie lasagna or baba ganoush, is that emotionally stunted and shallow?
You know, I’ve frequently argued against the whole “pedophiles are evil people who always molest children and can’t control themselves” schtick in the past.
I saw both of the deleted threads, and kept out of them, because the “YECCHHH!” factor was way to loud. LadMirer and whatver his name (Dylan Thomas? something like that) were just too creepy and skeevy for me to appear in the same thread with. I’ll take my pedophiles contrite and apologetic, thank you.
And here you go reading a “boylove” board to figure out if a poster should be banned or not.
