Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
That's literally what "rape fantasy" is. Do you actually think I meant I want to be raped? I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.
Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester
That's literally what "rape fantasy" is. Do you actually think I meant I want to be raped? I'm laughing so hard I'm crying.
No.The paragraph I wrote explaining the finer points of rape fantasy (and its stark differences from rape fetishism) is irrelevant to rape fantasy? Well, butter me up and call me a flapjack, I must have forgotten how the English language works.
Your talking about fetish sex.
Irrelevant
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
RAPE FANTASY AND RAPE FETISHISM ARE DIFFERENT. I HAVE SAID THAT ABOUT 100 TIMES NOW. SO HAVE OTHERS. YOU DO NOT READ, YOU JUST MAKE LITTLE COMMENTS YOU THINK ARE CLEVER.
Belz...
Fiend God
Forget it, isissxn. They are the moral guardians. They know what thoughts should be allowed and what thoughts should be banned or punished. They can tell when a thought of yours will result in action and they have every right to call you a murderer if you've ever entertained the idea of killing someone.
You and I are just plebs. They know what's best.
Then why are you going on about fetishism?
When you lot brought up rape fantasy.
Personally I didn't really care what you are into with your partner, but you seem obsessed with telling us.
Good for you
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Like pedophilia and coprophagia (to name only a few), actual sexual desires to violently rape someone or BE violently raped by someone are considered pathological and unhealthy.
Now (not wanting to completely ignore the original point), that does not change the fact that a fantasy kept as a fantasy harms no one. But because these pathological desires can "build up" in some afflicted people, most psychiatric researchers would recommend cognitive behavioral therapy or something more drastic if needed in order to manage them and minimize the chance of the individual eventually choosing to act on them. This would, in my opinion, include requiring a person with actual pedophilic inclinations to stay away from children whose presence could tempt them to offend or just enliven their urges steadily.
Oh, and lest you say I didn't make these distinctions earlier, I did. Shall I dig up the link?
Now (not wanting to completely ignore the original point), that does not change the fact that a fantasy kept as a fantasy harms no one. But because these pathological desires can "build up" in some afflicted people, most psychiatric researchers would recommend cognitive behavioral therapy or something more drastic if needed in order to manage them and minimize the chance of the individual eventually choosing to act on them. This would, in my opinion, include requiring a person with actual pedophilic inclinations to stay away from children whose presence could tempt them to offend or just enliven their urges steadily.
Oh, and lest you say I didn't make these distinctions earlier, I did. Shall I dig up the link?
Belz...
Fiend God
...in order to illustrate that thinking about something doesn't translate into reality. I had no idea that smartcooky was so fact-free about these things, so I thought it would connect.
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
If anything, I'm "obsessed" with not letting nasty, small-minded, illogical, and most importantly, LINGUISTICALLY INCORRECT chestnuts stand unchallenged. I'm a huge fan of my sex life, but I don't feel the need to bring it up in polite company.
This company got pretty damned impolite and illogical, so now, I'm throwing down. Your increasingly desperate insults aren't fooling anyone.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I think you finally get it. This is EXACTLY why bringing rape fantasy, torture fantasy and murder fantasy into a discussion about paedophilia is totally out of order. They have NO relevance to the discussion, not even as, in your words, "analogies or parallel thought experiments"
You cannot use the acceptability of rape fantasy as an analogy to justify acceptability of paedophilia fantasy!!!
Belz...
Fiend God
Once again you fail to see the analogy because, in your mind, fantasy begets reality, when in fact there is no evidence for this. That's why "pedophilia fantasy" doesn't make one more dangerous.
It's weird and certainly disturbing, but unless you have some evidence that none of us have seen before, it says nothing about the person's likelyhood of acting on it.
Except as has been mentioned about 10 times adult urges can be satisfied with a willing partner.
A bloke into rape fantasies can hire a fetish prostitute.
A pedo fantasizing about 4 year olds the only real outlet is kiddie porn which is disgusting or having a wank staring at the wall
Belz...
Fiend God
And it has been mentionned just as many times that this is irrelevant, because one need not act on their urges.
But one may or may not do because they have no outlet
Belz...
Fiend God
Never heard of masturbation?
Obviously yes because I put it in a post a minute ago
Belz...
Fiend God
So you have your outlet right there. Why did you say they didn't have one?
Because having a wank can get boring
Belz...
Fiend God
So can shagging a willing woman. None of this is relevant to the questions. Nobody has been able to show that pedophiles are more at risk of acting on their urges. The only argument I've seen is one from "common sense", which any member of this forum should know is weak to say the least. Nobody has been able to show a causal link between violent fantasy and violent actions. In short, nothing to show that your fears are founded.
I'd say that, to a rationalist, this should be an indication that one has to change their minds about the topic.
To a rationalist, that is.
The argument is and has been it isnt worth the risk for either the care provider or the pedo.
Or the children or their parents.
I tell you what. I will totally change my mind if you do the following that should be easy
Show me a study saying parents are fine to leave their kids alone with a confessed pedo who hasn't acted on their urges.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I said this waaay back in post 243...
However, the over-arching consideration for me is that the safety of the child is absolutely paramount. It comes first and foremost, and it is simply NOT worth taking a chance with placing them in a position where they might be at risk, and that risk IS greater than the risk from any other person who I know is NOT a paedophile. In my judgement, there is a real, and genuine risk that must be taken into account. As someone who works with young children (I am heavily involved in children's sport) it would be negligent of me to place a child at risk in such a fashion.
As usual, it was glossed over or hand-waved away.
If, as a person responsible for a child, I were to put that child with a person I knew to be a pedophile, and the pedophile chose to take that opportunity to act on their urge and molest the child, then any way you try to slice it, I would be blamed. CYF - Child, Youth and Family, (NZ's equivalent of the USA's CPS - (Child Protective Services) would hold ME accountable for placing the child at risk, and they might even charge me with endangering the welfare of a child.
Using Argumemnon's defence that "the pedophile was no more likely than any other person to molest the child" would be laughed out of Court.