“…” are mine.
After reading the following quotes, Cesario, you would do well to read my signature. It most definitely applies to your arguments here.
Where’s your sig?
Sorry, I just edited it!
No. Not at all…
Again no. What’s moral is NOT doing that at ALL. I have friends who have been molested or raped (and the thing is most of my friends who were raped were emotionally children at the time, since they were developmentally delayed)
and it fucked them up majorly. Even in the cases where it was “consentual” it fucked them up majorly…Sorry…but it really does fuck kids up majorly! If you have seen the psychological damage to kids that I’ve seen (b/c they were molested) you would not be yapping on and on about how children can consent and it doesn’t harm them.
Well you do have to have a dividing line somewhere.
…
…
Not at all…Teens (especially older teens) are more likely to have a grasp on human realtionships, and to see a relationship the way an adult sees it. BUT, they are still generally learning about human realtionships, and can still be easily manipulated. Which is why we need AOC laws!
Well, pity is probably safer for you than, say, homicidal rage leading to a public lynching.
There are some heterosexuals who are serial rapists, of course. Impulse control problems are not limited to just one segment of the population.
I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of people have only one awareness of pedophiles: people featured on the news for actually raping children. I recall being rather surprised some years ago to hear of a pedophile who had gone to considerable trouble to never hurt a child - he lived alone, told relatives he did not want to be alone with their children, etc. - and never harmed anyone. Then I thought about it again, and had to conclude that if a pedophile never actually hurt a child then, well, I find their impulses icky and disgusting but I can’t consider them criminal. If you haven’t done anything wrong then, well, you’re an upstanding citizen regardless of whatever thoughts you may have in the privacy of your skull. And if there is one of those guys then likely there are a lot more, but since pedophilia is so reviled I will likely never know who among those I know are non-criminal pedophiles, will I? So it might be that people with pedophila are much more common than anyone suspects but as long as they aren’t committing a crime we never see them.
Also seems to me that one can have pedophiliac urges AND also have attraction to adults as well - such a person would have an outlet for their sexual impulses in part, which might makes it easier for them to avoid harming children. Again, such people are likely to never be revealed to have a perversion.
So, while we have some idea of how many criminal pedophiles there are out there, we don’t really know if they’re a majority or a minority of people who have sexual attraction to children.
Why just men? Are you under the assumption that there are no female pedophiles? If so, you are incorrect.
Rather draconian, don’t you think? Isn’t that punishing someone for what they MIGHT do? We don’t punish people before the crime. I don’t give a damn what fantasies someone has as long as they don’t hurt someone else. There are people who fantacize about raping someone, but as long as they don’t actually commit rape I can’t condone punishing them for that desire. There are probably people who have sexual fantasies about killing people with a wood chipper and rolling around in resulting mess, but as long as they don’t act it out they are not criminal and should not be treated as such. I am totally skeeved by the idea of someone finding sex with an infant or toddler desirable but as long as they don’t perform any act that would harm a child I can’t condone punishing them for their thoughts.
When are you subjected to a breath test for alcohol outside of a setting where it is suspected you have done something wrong while intoxicated?
Humans have been known to settle for a sexual partner that doesn’t meet their ideal when they have no other choice. A classic example is heterosexual males thrust into all male groups who, with no females available for a long period of time, perform sexual acts on each other. If there were no other outlets for sex without extreme sanctions it might be of help to pedophiles who have no desire to harm others or break laws but yet also still have to contend with their sexual urges. I mean, c’mon, who hasn’t masturbated when horny and no sex partners are available?
Right now we offer pedophiles no options - it’s either entirely repress your desires or go to jail. There’s something to be said for offering them options, something like “if you restrict yourself to these approved outlets we won’t throw you in jail or restrict your movements”. Producing a sex toy for them that appeals to their kink and gives them an outlet for their urges seems like a tolerable idea to me. As to whether or not it would help them - I’d rather ask a pedophile if that would be of benefit rather than making a snap judgement.
Well, is it a problem if “closeted pedophiles” are the ones making such simulated porn? As long as no actual children involved?
Well, if a pedophile has raped a child… they’re a rapist. A criminal. I’d like to know if the guy down the block has raped adults, too, as that could impact my safety. But if the pedophile hasn’t raped a child then they’re not an offender and won’t be on the list, right?
The problem with those registries, of course, is that they only identify the ones who got caught and convicted. There are people out there who rape, murder, steal, and commit all sorts of crimes who haven’t been caught yet, and they don’t appear on registries. The registries provide a false sense of security. Yes, a known child rapist is dangerous, but the ones who haven’t been caught, the ones you can’t identify, are actually even more dangerous because they aren’t being watched.
Bottom line, I can’t condone actions which harm others. I think it would interesting to have a calm, rational discussion with Cesario about how to determine at what point a human being is truly capable of consenting to sexual acts, but given what a hot-button issue we’re dealing with here I can’t see that happening.
Cesario, a suggestion having to do entirely with form and style: you might do better by quoting one or two sections from others’ posts and responding in paragraphs, as opposed to going line by line and responding in (frequently dismissive) sentences. The latter style makes it virtually impossible to approach any kind of mutual understanding, and also makes each dialogue nearly impenetrable for any except the two taking part.
Yes, other people are doing this as well, but you’re the common vector for this thread, and once one side of a dialogue stops breaking each post into a dozen fragments, there’s a good chance the other side will stop as well.
I think ephophillia is probaly very common…look at all the porn sites with " HOT barely legal teens!"
But true pedophillia is probaly extremely rare. Someone who’s psychologically healthy does not lust after little kids, or think that little kids can consent.
This
style
is
truly
very
annoying.
Please, enlighten me.
The general public is composed primarily of the ignorant. The term is meaningless. He really was referring to child molesters, and he ought to get his terminology straight.
What do I have to say about the behaviors of child molesters? I don’t consider it germane to a topic about pedophilia. It’s not as though I endorce, in any way, the behavior of rapists or sexual predators of any sort, so expecting me to defend their kind will be an exercise in futility.
Wrong. I said I have no understanding of what “emotionally mature enough t understand the ins and outs of being in a relationship” means in any circumstance for anyone, and I requested that the person who was using that phrase define it in a falsable format. Can you do that, or do you want to just keep attacking in a misguided effort to score points?
So let’s just get this whole misunderstanding settled right here. You do not agree with forced reorientation efforts, regardless of the potential success rate, correct?
You see how that works? If you want to include anyone with any attraction, that includes the “stress reaction” group of 85%. If you want to use the actual definition, you use the 33% figure.
I claimed no such thing. I have a very clear moral reason not to have sex with children, which I address in one of the quoted sections you just put up. I care about what you and the rest of society would do to those children as a result of even a fully consensual encounter. Hence the mention of “very effective threats on my loved ones”.
Of you don’t want me to fill in the blanks, don’t leave blanks. If you have a problem with my interpretations, explain why they are incorrect. I’m not going to argue against a nonexistent argument.
I disagree with you about the likelihood of a minor providing meaningful consent, and you declare that makes my thinking “distorted”. I’m afraid there are precious few conclusions it is possible to draw from that.
Unclear on the concept of a comparison? While it is not a particularly moral act to light another person on fire, it is perfectly valid to say it is more moral to the tip of their shoe than to douse them bodily in gasoline then apply a blow torch.
You have read my proposal for making sure that people are mentally competent to consent, right? You know, the one that would identify people with developmental delays and extend statutory rape protections to them, while at the same time identifying people who are developmentally advanced from what we expect, and granting them their rights?
No, you don’t.
Why do you need an age of consent if your own experience demonstrates that the age of consent is crap, and people can pass it without having the slightest idea what sex is or any meaningful ability to actually consent?
Yeah, but the homicidal rage is more honest.
We can extrapolate from other figures:
Well, if it proves impossible to have such a discussion in open forum, there’s always PMs, if you’re really interested.
Aren’t I being accused of cowardly avoiding people’s points enough already? You are aware of how much that will increase if I start omitting parts of people’s posts and replying to large paragraphs with my own, which are guarenteed to miss some minor “point” raised.
You are aware that lusting after little kids is a completely distinct thought process from thinking they can consent, yes?
Promise not to disingenuously accuse me of ignoring your points if you can’t be bothered to read the paragraph long responses I pen for you?
This thread - and all the others like it - is beginning to remind me of the threads debating religion with the likes of Kanicbird: there comes a point - which I think has been reached - where points, from both sides, are being repeated. It has become clear that neither side will give to the other, and it also seems that nothing new is being added.
Having said that - do carry on.
It’s the public discourse with multiple viewpoints I’m interested in.
An “Ask the pedophile” thread has been suggested and might be a good place for the discussion as it would seem an important part of the topic. The problem, of course, is the very volatile emotions that would be raised. There is also the issue that there are some who think a discussion of an issue means to condone it (which it doesn’t) and concerns that you might be advocating criminal activity, which is a bannable offense on the Dope. I have yet to see you admit to any crime, and some of your statements here lead me to believe that you fully understand that sex with children is a crime in this country and you do not advocate that people do it (although your reason for obeying the law may differ from other peoples’ reasons).
While I appreciate that Cesario seems to be immune to our reasoning, I do think it is very important that he should realise one thing.
Adults having sex with children can cause the most appalling harm to the child. Unless you have witnessed it, the most graphic description of what the child suffers doesn’t even begin to explain the intense pain that the child goes through. And that suffering is life-long: there is no reprise or break from it. The mental trauma invades every part of her life.
Cesario has said that he wouldn’t force or rape a child. That he would assess the child’s ability to enter, without harm, into a sexual relationship. Remember that his prefered age span is from 0 to 10. This is pure fantasy. Can you even imagine a child in that age group being able to make a rational decision about how a sexual relationship with an adult will pan out for her? Even accepting his bizarre premise, how does he - or she - know how she will feel about it in the years to come?
History tells us that many abused children grow up with a horrific cross to bear. There may be some who can cope with it, or who do not suffer from it. But is it worth taking the risk with even one child?
I applaud Cesario for not acting on his desires, but I implore him not to ever give in to them. The high probability of inflicting a cruel and unusual torture is just too high a risk.
First, most people realize that you’ve got a couple dozen posters arguing with you and that you can’t be expected to respond to every single thing that each one of them says. Second, if you’re going to be accused of dodging arguments anyway, then why not post in a format that gives you at least some chance of convincing another person of something? Third, switching formats would be unlikely to increase the number of complaints you get about dodging; if anything, it would decrease the number. It’s the apparent attempt to address every bit of minutia individually that leads others to expect you to speak to the specific point that they felt was particularly important. If you’re posting complete thoughts instead of disjointed points, there won’t be the same expectation that you cover every inch of ground.
Seriously, I’ve been on this message board for eight damn years, and I’ve *never * seen a line-by-line deconstruction of a post result in the two parties’ being more understanding of each other.
Pedophiles are the reason for flagellant monasteries.
Cesario, I cut your “arguments to non existant” for the sake of brevity. As others have pointed out, you don’t have to quote the ENTIRE post, and go over it line by line.
As for those specific quotes I chose, and why I pointed to my signature, surely you have heard of the strawman fallacy? Because I’d say that a great deal of your arguments are exactly that.
And even without the severe harm (and to that I say WORD), let’s face it: most kids are pretty immature when it comes to the topic of sex. Upon learning what sex really IS, most kids (including myself) are extremely grossed out. I mean, who here didn’t say, “Eeeeew, my mom and dad did THAT???” Then you realize you have siblings. 
And it has nothing to do with shame, just that when you’re that little, you’re not old enough to understand the nuances of a sexual relationship.
I think if you tried to explain a blow job to a six year old (as was discussed in a previous thread), you’d get a mixture of being grossed out ("that’s where you PEE!!!) to uncontrollable giggles. Think Beavis and Butthead, only a hell of a lot younger.
I don’t think a person like that is mature enough for sex. Would you want to have sex with an adult who keeps saying things like, “I can see your boobies!!!”
Well…kids by definition are basicly developmentally delayed…that is emotionally not an adult, or even a teen. Even the “mature” kids back in elementary were still really innocent about sex and love. We knew about sex…but we didn’t connect it to lovemaking until we were teens.
Gunistasia…RIGHT ON!!!
Have read all of these pages and cannot believe Dopers have seriously proferred all of this intellectual discourse regarding the pros and cons of raping children. For the sake of argumentation with a self-proclaimed pedophile.
Such vehement arguments!
Such wishes for the pedophile to understand!
Such a sorry state of affairs!!!
Raping anyone is wrong. Raping children is adamantly, clinically, research-proven…INSANE.
Why engage this person?
Alright, VarlosZ, let’s try this your way. Let’s just go through the thread and make a response to the arguments as they’re brought up.
Let’s start with the idiotic assumption that just because I’m attracted to girls in a certain age range that I must automatically believe that those girls are all fully capable of informed consent. Just because I think someone’s hot doesn’t mean I assume they’re willing and able to have sex with me. Can we recognize that point yet?
My arguments on amending the age of consent (or more accurately, eliminating the age of consent and replacing it with the RMSC or similar assessment), has little to nothing to do with my age of attraction. I neither know nor care what the average age someone is going to be able to pass the thing is. If someone can pass it, they should be allowed to consent. If they can’t pass it, they shouldn’t be allowed to consent. That’s equally true if it turns out no one can genuinely meet the requirements until their thirties as it would be if it turned out practically no one over the age of eight couldn’t meet the requirements.
Now, Guinasta has suggested that a child is likely to be put off by the whole idea, and generally not interested in sex. The only response to that is to ask what you’re worried about if that’s the case? If they won’t consent, it doesn’t matter if they can consent. Why people seem to assume that just because you’re allowed to say “yes” to something means you are no longer allowed to say “no” is completely beyond me.
For a few years, I worked in an inpatient locked psych ward with children, many of whom were there because they were the victims of pedophiles. a couple of them, were also abusers themselves. I remember one in particular who at a young age was forced to have sex with his aunt, and in turn molested a small child…I had a few conversations with that kid, it was not hard to feel sympathy for him. It also did not excuse his actions. most of the kids who had been molested had no desire to do the same, but ALL of the pedophiles that I worked with, both on the kids unit and the adults, were also molested themselves…
I’m not sure about this, but I think I am beginning to understand what Cesario is trying to say to us. I am posting this in order to see if he, and others, think I have got this right.
Cesario, very strongly, wants to have sex with a child in 0-10 year age range. That, indisputably, everyone agrees with.
Now, either he has adjusted his replies over his numerous posts, or his message is finally sinking in for me. He says he would only have sex with a child if that child consented. He has been absolutely adamant that rape (that is, coercion) is not his modus operandi. (But see below.) He now seems to accept that it is very unlikely that a child would be able or willing to give consent.
The only difference is, I think, that he believes that there could be situations where if he believes a child freely consents, it would then not be rape; I don’t believe that a child in that age range is ever, under any circumstances, able to give consent.
This doesn’t in any way dilute my distaste for his thought processes, and while I am certain that if his criteria were met, he would act on his desires, he also accepts that those criteria are actually unlikely to be met. So the potential for harm is still there, but is being held in check by not being able to find a willing participant.
Is that right?