How would your “theory” apply to nonexclusive pedophiles like me? Since I am capable of emotional and sexual attraction to adults, does the stunted theory not apply to me? Do I have to completely lose the ability to see certain kinds of beauty before I can be said to get past whatever it is you think is hanging me up?
Not the most solid defintion ever, but potentially workable for the sake of this argument. I seem to recall someone talking about whether or not I ought to be allowed to walk down the street with my eyes open for fear I might look at a child and thus cause someone discomfort.
Where were you getting that this was intended as some justification for making sexual advances towards a child? I’ve been pretty consistent about how making sexual advances towards a child in this culture is a bad idea.
Good that we have some agreement on these points.
Any means necessary applies on both sides. We do have the slight advantage of being practically undetectable while the people who want to kill us are doing a wonderful job of shining a spotlight on themselves. Just a thought on the logistics of such a conflict.
Perhaps I should have specified an academic source that actually supported your position instead of just listing off a dozen different compeeting ideas with no backing whatsoever for any of them. My mistake.
Mutant registration. There’s a reason I occasionally use the alias Magneto.
You honestly believe that if you couldn’t get consentual partners, you’d resort to rape? And I’m the monster here?
Is there any particular reason they bothered listing the rate of sex offenses as second crimes in there? I would assume that recitivism statistics, in general, would reffer to the same or similar crimes being comitted again, comparing apples to apples. Maybe I just don’t understand the statistics they were trying to present.
It makes no such distinction. Did you read what I put up there? It identifies a pedophile as someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children. Exclusives are included in that group, but they by no means stand as the only group being discussed. Further, it’s about the difference between pedophiles and child molesters. As significant as the difference between heterosexuals and rapists.
You have an impulse control problem because you do this without thinking or considering the consequences, yes. Just because you don’t get screamed at or stoned, and because some sector of society thinks your behavior is acceptable even if unwanted does not make it any less a problem.
Again, never had any problem with it. I continue to find it baffling that you have such a problem, and consider it normal to be so lacking in self-control.
I’d like some backing for this assertion.
Your magical ability to tell when people are interested in you is fastenating. If you could bottle that, I’m sure that many of the problems men and women have faced over the millenia of human existence could be wiped out. Why are you not working with our top scientists to do so?
I don’t believe information is inherently evil. Any information. You no doubt disagree, but I find that deliberately keeping children ignorant is never really about benefiting them. It’s about benefiting the person who wants them not to know something.
And where in the world did I suggest that we should be making them think molestation is normal? I’ve been noticing a distinct trend with people putting words in my mouth here, and it’s getting quite annoying.
Should be able to extrapolate from adult attracted individuals. Personally, I would assume release is going to be release, and live up to its name by decreasing pressure. But that’s just me.
That problem has an easy solution. License the graphic designers who are making the stuff, have them put their brand name on it, and have the feds regularly check up on them, requiring that they regularly doccument every step of their production process so they can prove the material is faked.
Of course, this is only for the hyper-realistic stuff. You don’t need to be as strict with the obviously fake, stylized stuff like hentai mangas.
What about the setting needs to be controlled, exactly? Followed up on, I can see, but what about the setting is important? Is there some reason that a sterile white room is going to be a more suitable viewing area for the porn than in the privacy of their own homes?
If you can find someone over 18 who actually looks like they’re prepubescent, let me know. My best friend is underdeveloped due to a growth condition, but even she looks closer to 14 than 9.
I’m glad that misconception has been cleared up. Oh how I loathe that one.
I should think this would be an important pursuit even if you did think you could “cure” us. After all, would it be moral to return to the opressive laws of yesteryear for homosexuals if they could be reliably “cured”?
The fact that you honestly believe yourself so morally bankrupt that you’d rape someone if no one would consent to sex with you is kind of sad, actually.
This fact seems to suggest that robotics won’t solve the problem, since the people making the robots are refusing to let their technology solve the problem. We need to deal with the social issues before we can get the robot makers over their “moral” objections on this, it would seem.
There is a good deal of pornographic anime and manga that features prepubescent characters. Most of it is doujin, a kind of non-professional, home-made sort of manga, but there’s professionally made stuff in that vein. The Japanese have fewer hangups with people admitting their interest in this area than we have in the west, and that pornography demographic is profitable enough.
I have no doubt that with 33% of the adult male population being more arroused by images of nude children than they are by nude adults, that this sort of porn wouldn’t be hurting for paying customers.
It is, however, trivially easy to determine if the child actually exists if you’ve got the graphic artists licensed to produce this kind of pornography, and who can produce the evidence of their process on demand.
I know I for one would very much like to see an officially licensed pornographer producing this under those strict controls, since I have no interest in actual explotative materials. I can’t imagine I am alone in that preference.
And it’ll help with someone who’s emotionally stuck in his development how?
Seriously, like I said in the real-doll thread. It’s a sex-toy. Nothing more and nothing less.
Do you have any actual basis for this assessment, or is it just something that belongs in IMHO?
Is this yet another offer of our own country? Because as often as I’ve seen that proposal put forward, I’m still waiting on the governments of the world settling on which large landmass they’re going to offer us to settle on. (Keeping in mind that, at a bare minimum, we represent 20-33% of the adult male population, and an unknown percentage of the female population.)
Lust is all that is required for a diagnosis, but it isn’t as though sexual interest in someone makes you incapable of loving them or forming strong emotional connections of other sorts.
What’s to condone? What is the practical difference between an image that is in my head, and an image that is on my computer screen, or doodled in my notebook?
Always nice to know where you stand.
How exactly is that different from sex with adult-oriented people, again?
They are required to report you if they have any reason to believe that you might. That reason need not be logical or rational, and doctors are just as emmersed in our culture’s paedo-hysteria as anyone else.
Also, medical privacy is a joke. Even without doctors being allowed to explicitly tell other people about your conditions, the doctors you see, the medications you’re prescribed, and a dozen other things mean there are a lot of people capable of easily extrapolating your diagnosis.
Think an organization founded to support gay rights by oposing jurisdictions using different ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex in order to discriminate against gays?
I only ever bring up nature (and I have a number of lovely pieces on it) when some idiot makes a naturalistic fallacy claiming it’s unnatural (by which they mean “wrong”).
Situational offenders are just regular rapists who don’t care who or what they’re raping so long as they get to hurt someone. Children just happen to be smaller, weaker, and avalible to said offenders. Nothing at all to do with sexual prefference there.
And why do I need to “shut up about it”, exactly?
No amount of avalible masturbatory aids will impact, in any way, how legitimate my orientation is. Wiping out free speech and putting up blocks on anything that anyone might ever consider might look in any way like a child won’t change the fact that there is nothing wrong with my desires. It’ll just mean the state is fascist beyond hope of redemption and needs to be destroyed rather than just changed as is my current hope.
Most predators target their own children. The dirty little secret that the myth of the pedophile lurking in the bushes tries so hard to conceal. Incest abuse accounts for 87.5% of child sexual abuse. More if you count step-parents and other close family members. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure5_2.htm
Would you care to define “aberrant” in this context?
Again, putting words in my mouth and attributing arguments to me that I have never put forward in any context in any argument I have ever participated in on this or any other board. If you want to set up a straw-man, kindly don’t attach my name to it.
No, that’s you nonpedophiles’ thing. As I’ve been reading these threads, I’ve been consistently recognising that children have interests and knowledge that those on the other side of the debate flattly refuse to accept they have.
Report them. You-tube has plenty of cause to take down kiddie porn imagery, and if you aren’t reporting them to the site moderators when you find them (as you are implicitly claiming you have), you are complicit in this distribution of child pornography.
And the fact that this was a false accusation doesn’t seem in the slightest bit relevent to you, to the point that you put it in as a parenthetical footnote. Fact of the matter is, such webmasters are almost certainly going to get a deluge of such accusations about anything they put up, but so long as they’re enforcing their board’s standards, they not only have a justification for doing so, but they have a moral obligation to brush off baseless accusations.
And really, the “beauty and innocence” thing has zip to do with the webmaster in question. It has everything to do with the phrasing of certain laws relating to artistic nude images. The only psychological disconnect here is with the lawmakers.
I agree, lawmakers need to be brought to task for that.
Just like the best defense for women from rapists is to wear nonrevealing clothing, not walk home alone, not get drunk, and effectively live as paranoid prisoners in fear of some asshole coming along and raping them?
Don’t you think that ought to be up to the individuals depicted therein? I support a ban on using existing materials out of respect for the people depected in them to control their own image, but that means they deserve the right to release it just as much as it means they deserve the right to prevent its release.
Never allow the molesters to profit, but there’s no reason that the victims can’t if they so chose.
A reasonable assessment. I don’t agree with it, but I think that reasonable people can disagree on this point.
That, and ensuring that we have a convient list that we can go to when we feel like rounding people up and putting them in camps (as someone has already managed to suggest.
Well…the root cause could be distorted thinking. Sort of along the lines of borderline personailty disorder/ general mental illness.
Actually, I wonder if a lot of it may be due to the pedophile misinterpreting friendliness as “OMG they’re interested in me! They want to have a honest to god romantic relationship with me.” Whereas a non pedo would just see it as normal friendliness…I can remember back when I lurked at those aforementioned messageboards, someone mentioning that he was autistic…and yammering on about how amazing it was that another autistic person was posting there (NOT demonizing autisim) Just saying that, it’s possible that the pedos have the “right” combonation of being emotionally stunted PLUS distorted thinking PLUS not being able to interpret “normal social cues”
Or perhaps the pedophile is misinterpreting appreciating the beauty of little kids with being sexually attracted to them.
One of the posters from the pedo msg board was a dude who identifyed as pedo even thou the only thing about him was that he had a fixtation on little girl’s underwear. While that is creepy, it’s not the same as diddling a little kid or thinking that a little kid is a desirable sex partner.
I mean I think little kids are cute…but I also know that virtually ALL little kids really don’t have the emotional abilty to understand sex in the content of a honest to god emotional/romantic relationship. I mean little kids are at the point where they are " I like grape soda…you like grape soda? We’ll be best friends!"
Whereas adult realtionships are far more complicated then something like that.
The discussion will go better, ISTM, if we can focus on restrictions we can reasonably impose and not focus on strawmen.
Good. Keep that in mind. Very, very clearly in mind.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. Child molestation is not undetectable. That is to say - some people have the impulse to have sex with children, they act on it, it comes to the attention of the authorities, society acts to eliminate the threat.
Like I said, it’s not gong to come down to a war, unless you count criminal laws against child molestation as a war. On the one side, we have the vast majority of Western society. On the other side, there are a few perverts. Not much of a war.
There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain.
This is a distinction without relevance.
If you are the sort of person who finds himself in a situation where he can molest a child, and does so, then he is a child molester by definition. And he had at least some inclination towards pedophilia, or the notion of attacking the child would not have occurred to him.
Your comparison of heterosexuals and rapists is fine, but it has nothing to do with exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles.
I am a heterosexual. I find women sexually attractive. But I have never raped anyone, even though my attraction to women is exclusive - I have no impulse towards men or children.
I believe this is the source of much of the anger towards child molestors. Before I met my wife, I was celibate. Therefore I know from personal experience that it is perfectly possible to refrain from acting on one’s sexual urges based on a belief that such action would be morally wrong. But if I can manage it, I become that much less sympathetic towards pedophiles who don’t. This is especially so when fornication is “less wrong” than child molesting.
That’s why I find stuff about not being able to walk down the street because you might cast an eye on a child to be annoying at best and disingenuous at worst. We as a society do not care what someone’s impulses are - control them, and there is no issue. If some pedophile complains about how difficult it is to have these impulses and not act on them, then my response is twofold - [list=a][li]It’s not that tough - I managed it, so can you, and [*]even if I’m wrong and it is much more difficult for you to control yourself, tough shit - you damn well better do it anyway, because no excuses are going to be good enough.[/list][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
No, it means you have a list of people who are permitted to have the material. It’s like the difference between a shotgun and a machine gun. The former can be owned by Joe Schmoe. The latter requires more hoops for the jumpin’ because they are generally illegal.
Nobody’s claiming that child/child relationships are any more or less legitimate than adult/adult relationships. The problem with adult/child relationships is that it throws off the balance of power. The adult has a body of social experience which the child has yet to encounter, and the adult also is acting on physical and emotional desires which the child has not experienced yet. Sure, adult/child relationships are a necessary part of the nurturing process (parents, teachers, coaches, etc.) but in order for them to work, certain boundaries must be set.
Well, shit, why stop there? Test for rape and bondage fantasies, for anger issues … shit, for kleptomania. Why not? Put every single person who has non-approved thoughts in camps. In the totalitarian state you prefer, I’d be on the side of the pedophiles.
Actually, I’m on the side of the pedophile in this thread. Congratulations, Cesario, on keeping your cool in dealing with a number of people with reading comprehension and logic issues. I admire your restraint in um, several different areas.
In order to make sure that the legal porn, made from licensed animators, isn’t mixed and manipulated with illegal porn from molested children. Yes, you can digitally stamp an image with software. But somebody who’s computersavy can surely take that stamp and reproduce it and stamp an illegal image, too.
Also, I wanted data and studies on how porn, esp. simulated porn, actually affects pedophiles. Theorizing from personal experience is one thing, real studies with a lot of data is much better. And a controlled setting makes gathering the data easier.
Maybe because I don’t know what terms exactly people are using here. Is a pedophile everybody who’s attracted to people under 18, or is it divided into ephebophiles who are attracted to teens, and pedophiles who are attracted to pre-puberty children? I guess many people use the latter to mean both groups.
This is a difficult question. If there was a reliable cure - I wonder how many are wired, and how many are emotionally stunted and thus would benefit from therapy - then I would consider it better to cure the pedophiles than have them spend their whole lives locked up or unable to fulfil their attractions.
Because if they are wired and there is no cure, we have to find a humane way for them to live out their attractions, without causing harm to real children, and that’s going to be quite difficult.
Gays are different in that respect because the gay partner isn’t molested or harmed; real children are harmed if you have sex with them.
You quote my whole paragraph and read that I would rape someone??? Please work on your comprehension. You don’t want posters to put words in your mouth, then don’t do it yourself. Nowhere did I say that I would rape somebody. I said that it frightens me to consider a lifetime of being alone (aside from friends) because you have no hope of finding a partner. That has got nothing to do with what I would do. Even more so because not only I have a partner, but because I have a hope of finding somebody.
As for the gay people, they didn’t rape somebody. However their situation is similar in that one aspect that most of them try to suppress or overcome their orientation, and fail. That’s why I wonder if pedophiles are able to suppress their attraction forever.
Maybe you are a wonderful example (but then, you also said that you are attracted to adults, too? So do you count as “real” pedophile? I thought pedophiles were unable to feel attracted to adults?) of self-restraint and can keep it up. But the amount of molested children and the real-world experience of “normal” adults tells us that on the broad scale self-restraint alone won’t work. So it’s back to locking up or helping in some way. I want the latter to work, if we find out how.
Obviously, people are different, and many are interested in only sex, not a relationship (although personally, I consider those people to be stunted emotionally, too, and need therapy). But those people are not the problem, they can have porn and robots. It’s the people who are wired to be only attracted to underage people, not adult people, who are not emotionally stunted, that I’m thinking off, and feeling sorry for.
I didn’t read the real-doll thread. But maybe you misunderstood my point. If a person wants to have sex with underage people and nothing more, then get him a doll, end of story.
I have no sympathy or anything for that kind of person, because he bores me and I can’t connect to somebody who’s only interested in sex.
But what about people who want a real relationship? Many real adult people who are attracted to adult people are deeply unhappy to the point of depression because they can’t find a partner (due to the impossible standards of society re looks and money), and they aren’t content with banging a robot or a whore. Those people, I feel sympathy for.
You keep saying this. The point is that **you don’t think an adult having sex with a prepubescent child is necessarily rape ** (morally). That’s the root of all the disagreement, as far as I can tell. So no, I would never rape someone if I couldn’t get a consenting partner for some reason, but if I DID believe I had a consenting partner and it was only an unjust law that was standing in our way, and that was going to be the case with everyone I might want to have sex with in my life…then I don’t know, maybe I would do it. Same as gay people having sex even when it’s a crime, but morally I still wouldn’t consider them criminals.
Of course I don’t agree with you that a child can ever consent to sex with an adult, but based on YOUR beliefs, it wouldn’t morally constitute rape.
Cesario, have you been following the other thread? (Back the fuck off my kiddos, pedo-creep!) I’ve posted before that pedophiles can do things that creep out kids (or for that matter parents) without actually raping them. Do you think that thread is an example of overreaction and why or why not?
Who said that anyone who has committed a crime doesn’t deserve punishment? And most people here are talking about those who HAVEN’T molested anyone. Cesario, I think most gay rights groups do not like being lumped in with NAMBLA. It’s not about gay rights, and I think most of our gay posters here would be offended. I’m not trying to be nasty, but that is one thing I’m sure of. And I don’t think a group that compares child molestation (and call it what you will, but adult/child relationships are NOT equal), to being gay CAN be related to gay rights.
There are at least three members of this board who creep me out beyond reason without actually raping anyone (as far as I know). I don’t think being creepy is much of an accusation.
Ah, so you’re not saying it’s an unreasonable request, you just don’t think you can enforce it.
:rolleyes:
Do you read? You haven’t been talking about criminal laws against child molestation. You’ve been talking about murdering or brainwashing anyone who doesn’t share your ideas of what ought to be considered sexy. Post 42 in this thread, back on page 1 where this conversation thread started.
Once again, my side has at least 20-33% of the adult male population, in this hypotehtical fighting against an extremist minority trying to exterminate them. I think you overestimate your chances.
Concession accepted.
You’re the one who brought it up.
Just like how if you rape a woman, you must have thought she was attractive on some level, so the bitch should take it as a complement, right?
Guess you know better than the FBI sex offender experts who’s job it is to analyze these things, though…
Kind of the point. Exclusive vs. non-exclusive pedophiles has nothing to do with pedophiles versus child molesters.
And you assume (with no evidence) that I’m different from you in this regard why?
You haven’t been reading. Freudian Slit was discussing precisely that. I’m not making this shit up.
You haven’t been living in this society long, have you?
And you think my responses differ?
Please explain to me why you’re using weapons as your analogy. What possible thing can I do to someone when I have a certain kind of porno magezine versus a different kind of porno magezine? How does my posession of porn enable me to harm people?
Ah, so you assume we’re all delusional.
Seemed to be the implication of what I was quoting there.
So, Bill Gates has sex with someone, it’s automatically rape? He’s got way more power and influence than them, so obviously there’s a power imbalance.
And this experience is relevent how? Since it’s principally about a social system the child isn’t a part of, I fail to see what possible advantage it could convey.
And? What possible relevence has the motivation to do with anything? Men and women shouldn’t be allowed to form relationships since they’re acting on desires the other gender has never experienced. :rolleyes:
So you think that power issues are going to be inherently harmful to a relationship, so you only acknowledge relationships where there is an inherent power imbalance?
Thank you. Considering the persistent urge I’ve been having to beat people over the head with heavy blunt objects due to the lack of reading comprehension, I don’t think I’ve been maintaining my cool that well, but it’s nice of you to say so anyway.
Which impacts the study how?
And you can stamp on a barcode that uniquely identifies the image, so all you have to do is compare the image in the database of legitimate material the barcode refers to the image it’s stamped on. Very simple verrification.
But then, as a software developer, I resolve these kinds of issues all the time.
Not really. You’ll get more accurate information if you give one group the materials, send them home, have them live their lives, and compare their future incarceration rates to the control group.
May people are idiots who don’t know what words mean. You seem to understand the distinction.
While I have no intrinsic objection to helping those who are distressed, I have no doubt that someone would attempt to force this “cure” on unwilling subjects. That cannot be morally justified, and would justify pretty much any action taken in the name of stopping it.
And this is relevent to people’s thoughts how?
Ah, so this was on the subject of pity, not fear-mongering. My mistake.
Neither did pedophiles.
Why should we suppress it? Seems to me that only leads to psychological strain and impulse control problems making someone more likely to act out. Self-acceptance seems important in either case.
Again, with the idea that not raping people is some titanic act of self-restraint. Also:
You thought wrong. A pedophile is someone who prefers children. This need not be an exclusive orientation like heterosexuality or homosexuality. It merely describes the primary orientation. I assure you I fit the criteria for the sexual orientation (if not the definition for the paraphelia due to the lack of “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”).
If you want to help, you should get yourself informed about the facts. I reccomend this for starters:
You are aware that emotional relationships and sex need not go along with one another, yes? That you can have celebate emotional relationships just as well as you can have meaningless sex.
I see, so you can only feel sympathy for people who have your particular views in terms of sex. Got it.
What about them?
See, that wasn’t so hard to understand, was it?
The difference is who is threatened by the violation of that unjust law. I don’t give two shits what happens to me for violating an unjust law. Indeed, I consider it a moral imperative to violate unjust laws. But in this situation, society effectively holds a gun to my would-be-lover’s head. If we go through with this, society will do everything in its power to turn that event into a rape, and said lover into a wreaked-for-life rape victim. And while I don’t accept responsibility for that evil, I also can’t bring myself to risk someone I care about in the pursuit of toppling said unjust law.
Hope that clears things up.
No, I don’t think I’ve seen that one. I assume from the title, it’s in the Pit?
Considering I spent nearly an hour the other day chatting with a very attractive four-year-old in the presence of her mother and older brother, and the only reaction was for the girl to try to get her brother to leave so she could have me to herself, yes, I do think you’ve been horribly over-reacting.
I know I have been.
Whether they like it or not, the organization was founded because a bunch of homophobic bigots were trying to use the age of consent as a weapon of discrimination against gays. You might want to look up the incident some time.
What’s wrong with being on top of things? Pedophlic molestation REALLY fucks kids up psychologically.
It’s NOT hysteria for crying out loud! It’s being CAUTIOUS!!!
Ummmm how did you come up with that stat? By counting those guys who are attracted to teen girls? Sorry…but you really can’t do that. I think there’s a comedian who says that when he finds himself attracted to teen girls, they open up their mouths and spoil the whole thing.
Some people might think I was a pedo b/c a few years ago
I happened to develop feelings towards a girl I thought was at least 18, but was 17-ish. ( I was in my mid-late twenties) We never had a romantic realtionship when she was underage, and I certainly wasn’t attracted to the fact that she was a teen. I wasn’t stuck on the fact that she was YOUNG. (the way virtually ALL pedos are)
I loved her b/c I really really liked her as a PERSON!!!
(she was very mature, unschooled ,very libral chick)
No. Not that way. Adults tend to be a heck of a lot more savvy then little kids about how relationships work. Heck…even teens and young adults (you really don’t even want to KNOW about the stuff that went on in college) aren’t too savvy about relationships.
That’s easy… As I said before almost all kids are on the " You like grape soda?I like grape soda" level of social interaction. Adults (except for those with significent developmental issues) tend to have a more sophiscated grasp on realtionships.
Huh? Men and women experiance the same emotional desires. Granted they don’t experiance the same physical desires…but that’s par for the course for hetro couples.
Cesario spends most of his posting time, as far as I can tell, in justifying why his desire to have sex with children is reasonable, including, at one point, posting a form that a child should fill in to prove that she understands, for example, the concept of rape, and that she understands what consensual sex is.
Can anyone explain to me how the concept of consensuality and form filling when applied to having sexual intercourse with a new born baby has any relevance at all?
If he, and others who feel the same way, manage to resist carrying out their urges, then, yes, I feel sympathy for their dilemma. My sympathy is considerably reduced if they believe that there is nothing wrong with their attraction for children: mainly because I think that that would make it even harder for them not to act on their desires. But I cannot think of any justification at all for the desire to have sex with a baby.
Shodan stated up above “There are no such studies. The causes of pedophilia are not known for certain.”
Doesn’t this seem odd for an activity that has been going on for as long as humans have existed?* Why* haven’t enough studies been done yet to establish what is going on in this area of sexuality?
Another thing about this subject that has aroused my curiosity - can I say “aroused” in this type of thread? - is, if watching child pornography is so likely to lead to actually carrying out the physical act, how do investigators sit and watch all that mind-warping stuff with immunity? Do they have special glasses? Is it just women who watch them? Are the men fitted with plesmographs and told to take a break if a response becomes apparent?
It all seems like such ridiculous scaremongering when the most likely pedophile of all is going to be the child’s father.
It doesn’t strike me as odd - the causes of human behavior are often complex and difficult to establish. We don’t even know much about the mechanism(s) that determine heterosexual vs. homosexual.
I’m not sure what you are talking about. It is not reasonable to expect pedophiles to walk down the street with their eyes closed to avoid looking at children. Unless he has been convicted, in which case I can think of a couple of ways to prevent him from walking down the street at all.
Yes, quite well, thank you for asking.
No, I have been talking about criminal laws against child molesting. I am not sure if you draw a distinction between “war against child molesting” and “laws against child molesting”. If you do, feel free to explain it; if not, then your point loses its point.
33% of the adult population sympathizes with those who attack children and wants to revoke the laws against these attacks?
I decline to believe you.
Yes, it is correct that a rapist is “attracted” to his victim on some level. The notion that she should take it as a compliment is a grotesquely stupid and offensive load of horseshit posted in an apparent attempt to forestall debate.
Because I don’t pollute the SDMB with posts about how nice it would be to get a blow job from a six year oild child.
Longer than you, I am willing to bet.
Again, this really doesn’t establish much. A normal person, when he has an opportunity to molest a child, doesn’t do it. Anyone who does is a pedophile on some level.
An opportunistic pedophile is no better, and no different, than the guy who lies awake nights thinking about how he wants to rape a six year old.
On some level, this is a tu quoque - “it isn’t so bad that I want to rape babies because somebody else has a stress reaction to kiddie porn”. This is a logical fallacy - get over it.
Just a thought on the logistics of such a conflict.