• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Language and labels - paedophile or child-molester

smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
This
 
Darat said:
This reminds me of when school shootings happened in the past and the stories would be in horror because "they played many violent computers games". Which was true.

But then so did 30 million other kids and adults, indeed it would have been more unusuall if they hadn't played "violent" video games.

That bad people do something does not necessarily mean it is a bad thing, you seem to be mistaking a weak correlation for causality.
Click to expand...

It's not even that. It is conflating a woman having a fantasy of someone "having their wicked way with them" with a fantasy of being the rapist.
 
jimbob said:
It's not even that. It is conflating a woman having a fantasy of someone "having their wicked way with them" with a fantasy of being the rapist.
Click to expand...

Actually no.

The topic is pedos

It isn't women's fantacies when it was brought up by others.

It was men. And how it wasn't an issue

Personally don't know or care either way but

To which I assumed extended to kids as both are illegal
 
Should point out I couldn't give a rat's arse about couples personal fetishes.

It's irrelevant to the thread subject
 
The problem is that there is no acceptable outlet for their sexuality, nor should there be.

That is going to cause problems. I do wonder whether the Roman Catholic Church's views on celibacy in the priesthood normalise abusive sexual behaviour - if any sex is a sin, then it's just a matter of degree between a loving, consensual relationship and child abuse.
 
cullennz said:
Actually no.

The topic is pedos

It isn't women's fantacies when it was brought up by others.

It was men. And how it wasn't an issue

Personally don't know or care either way but

To which I assumed extended to kids as both are illegal
Click to expand...

But if you look at what Ixxn was describing, she was describing bodice rippers.
 
jimbob said:
The problem is that there is no acceptable outlet for their sexuality, nor should there be.

That is going to cause problems. I do wonder whether the Roman Catholic Church's views on celibacy in the priesthood normalise abusive sexual behaviour - if any sex is a sin, then it's just a matter of degree between a loving, consensual relationship and child abuse.
Click to expand...
And it doesn't help that when the line is crossed they are just moved on and no one actually deals with the issue
 
jimbob said:
But if you look at what Ixxn was describing, she was describing bodice rippers.
Click to expand...
Was speaking of the ones that actually brought it up in the first place.

Her change to fetish sex was frankly boring and not relevant
 
If you can be bothered

Read back

It was based on rape fantasy by blokes being natural apparently

Have no probs if true.

I've just never had one

And by extension that means other illegal fantasy must be too
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Yes, I know that, but I am still allowed to find it disgusting.
Click to expand...
No you are not. Because we don't control what people think your thoughts require no approval from anyone. I think what you meant to say was that you are allowed to come to normal communicate to other people that you find it disgusting.

And my follow up question, do you find those that engage in fantasies ranging from a single person being killed to genocide more disgusting and those people even worse perverts?
 
Darat said:
You are now simply lying.
Click to expand...
Darat.

I think you are avoiding the genuine concern people had when rape fantasy was brought before xx whatever had to indulge us with her sex exploits.

Don't get me wrong.

If she feels the need to tell everyone I don't care.

She could shag a dog for all I care.

But it's irrelevant to the topic
 
Darat said:
You are now simply lying.
Click to expand...

I am not lying!

You can't hold a position that a paedophile is no more likely to actually rape a child than a man who experiences a rape fantasy is likely to actually rape a woman, and then say you don't have a problem with rape fantasies without implying that you don't have a problem with paedophile fantasies either!

If you equate paedophile fantasy with hetero rape fantasy, and then say that hetero rape fantasy is is acceptable, then you are de-facto saying that paedophile fantasy is acceptable.

You cannot have this both ways!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I am not lying!

You can't hold a position that a paedophile is no more likely to actually rape a child than a man who experiences a rape fantasy is likely to actually rape a woman, and then say you don't have a problem with rape fantasies without implying that you don't have a problem with paedophile fantasies either!

If you equate paedophile fantasy with hetero rape fantasy, and then say that hetero rape fantasy is is acceptable, then you are de-facto saying that paedophile fantasy is acceptable.
Click to expand...

How are thoughts not acceptable?

And if you're going to say that they lead to action, you'll need to support that. If it's just your opinion, then you know exactly how much that is worth.
 
isissxn said:
You didn't say "that's personally not my bag," though, did you. You insinuated, nay CLAIMED, that such people are fundamentally damaged or wrong.
Click to expand...

The important question is: should they be spanked for their deviant thoughts?

Concerning fantasies: There is a difference between having a fantasy, enacting a fantasy in a controlled environment with a consenting participant*, and committing crimes in order to satisfy a desire.

*a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is needed, which puts further distance between the fantasy and real life situation.
I doubt people who get off on having their partner wear a French maid costume, expect them to clean the entire house for minimum wage before they get to the naughty part.

Pedophiles can have fantasies, and if they do not involve other people in them, we might never know.
They can't act out their fantasy with a consenting person, so any action towards fulfilling their sexual desire would be criminal.

Someone who is attracted to children and places him- or herself in a position where they can expect to be around children (unsupervised) or have authority over children, is acting in bad faith.
I have no data on the topic, but I would say that any adult who is sexually attracted to the children they teach/supervise/care for should be removed from that position, because they are a risk.

Then there are those that have actually abused children. Some of them are pedophiles, some of them are opportunists who just get off on sexual assault, and children are usually an easier target than adults.
Whatever fantasies these people have or have had is irrelevant, because we are punishing them for their actions, not their thoughts.

None of us are mind readers and people who fantasize about raping little kids are really really unlikely to admit to that, so any attempt to use someone's fantasies as apredictor of the likelyhood that they will become rapists will be dommed to fail.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
The important question is: should they be spanked for their deviant thoughts?

Concerning fantasies: There is a difference between having a fantasy, enacting a fantasy in a controlled environment with a consenting participant*, and committing crimes in order to satisfy a desire.

*a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is needed, which puts further distance between the fantasy and real life situation.
I doubt people who get off on having their partner wear a French maid costume, expect them to clean the entire house for minimum wage before they get to the naughty part.

Pedophiles can have fantasies, and if they do not involve other people in them, we might never know.
They can't act out their fantasy with a consenting person, so any action towards fulfilling their sexual desire would be criminal.

Someone who is attracted to children and places him- or herself in a position where they can expect to be around children (unsupervised) or have authority over children, is acting in bad faith.
I have no data on the topic, but I would say that any adult who is sexually attracted to the children they teach/supervise/care for should be removed from that position, because they are a risk.

Then there are those that have actually abused children. Some of them are pedophiles, some of them are opportunists who just get off on sexual assault, and children are usually an easier target than adults.
Whatever fantasies these people have or have had is irrelevant, because we are punishing them for their actions, not their thoughts.

None of us are mind readers and people who fantasize about raping little kids are really really unlikely to admit to that, so any attempt to use someone's fantasies as apredictor of the likelyhood that they will become rapists will be dommed to fail.
Click to expand...

Thank you - if, however they had left written evidence of their fantasies that came top light, then I would consider them to be a danger.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Someone who is attracted to children and places him- or herself in a position where they can expect to be around children (unsupervised) or have authority over children, is acting in bad faith.
I have no data on the topic, but I would say that any adult who is sexually attracted to the children they teach/supervise/care for should be removed from that position, because they are a risk.
Click to expand...

You wont get Argumemnon to agree to this. He thinks they are no greater risk that anyone else

Porpoise of Life said:
None of us are mind readers and people who fantasize about raping little kids are really really unlikely to admit to that, so any attempt to use someone's fantasies as apredictor of the likelyhood that they will become rapists will be dommed to fail.
Click to expand...

But what if they do admit to it, say, in a moment of weakness, or after they have a had a few drinks? Would you, at any time after that, put your children under their care unsupervised?

Earlier, I posted this comment...

"If, as a person responsible for a child, I were to put that child with a person I knew to be a paedophile, and the paedophile 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. "

Those who oppose my view chose not to comment, presumably because they knew they couldn't.

The real point I am making here (and that most people here are missing) is that it all very well for anonymous people to have theoretical "ivory tower" debates, using petty, self-serving analogies to try to prove their point, but out here in the real world, where real people like me are charged with the care of real children, those petty debates count for nothing. I simply cannot take the risk; the consequences of getting this kind of judgement wrong could be dire for the child, and could lead to criminal prosecution and conviction for me. I could end up in jail.

I'm not prepared to take that risk.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You wont get Argumemnon to agree to this. He thinks they are no greater risk that anyone else
Click to expand...

Only based on my fact-based understanding that fantasy does not beget reality. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm yet to see you support your own opinion with facts. And I've already addressed the issue of "outlet" for one's urges.
 
Argumemnon said:
Only based on my fact-based understanding that fantasy does not beget reality. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm yet to see you support your own opinion with facts. And I've already addressed the issue of "outlet" for one's urges.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, though, you understand that those of us who are actually charged with the safety and care of other people's children, cannot afford to assume you might be right?
 
Argumemnon said:
Only based on my fact-based understanding that fantasy does not beget reality. I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I'm yet to see you support your own opinion with facts. And I've already addressed the issue of "outlet" for one's urges.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between someone who has an acceptable outlet for their sexual desires, and who might indulge in fantasy as well and someone who has no acceptable outlet. The fantasy mightn't be the problem - the fact that it indicates unacceptable sexual desires is.

If I can brush up my google-fu to think of the terms, I'll refer to a relevant case where a heterosexual man was issued with a court order over his dangerous sexual proclivities, which were riskier to his partners than he disclosed.
 
jimbob said:
There is a difference between someone who has an acceptable outlet for their sexual desires, and who might indulge in fantasy as well and someone who has no acceptable outlet.
Click to expand...

I've already mentioned an outlet (masturbation) but so far nobody has addressed it. I accept that outlets that allow one's particular preferences to be indulged in entirely is better, but other than common sense no one seems to know if this translates in higher risk of sexual violence.
 
Argumemnon said:
I've already mentioned an outlet (masturbation) but so far nobody has addressed it. I accept that outlets that allow one's particular preferences to be indulged in entirely is better, but other than common sense no one seems to know if this translates in higher risk of sexual violence.
Click to expand...
I did.

I said it can get boring and not as satisfying after a while.
 
Argumemnon said:
Since you've followed this thread from the beginning, the above can only be taken to be a lie. Choose your rhetorical tricks more carefully.
Click to expand...
A pedo by definition can't have real sex.

Personally because I'm not gay I can't get it up for a dude.

A pedo presumably couldn't get it up for an adult.

Unless I've totally misunderstood what you meant and I am an idiot.

Which to be fair has happened before
 
cullennz said:
A pedo by definition can't have real sex.
Click to expand...

No, that is completely false, mainly because pedophilia is a preference. Like I prefer spaghetti to a sandwich but will eat sandwiches anyway.

Personally because I'm not gay I can't get it up for a dude.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you are utterly ignorant of this matter. Plenty of gay people have had relationships with the opposite sex, for instance, and plenty of straight people have experimented.

Unless I've totally misunderstood what you meant and I am an idiot.
Click to expand...

Not an idiot. Just ignorant of the facts.
 
luchog said:
Really? You know this because you're a medical professional? Where did you get your degree?




And I thought only Americans were this happy to display utter and complete ignorance to the world around them.
Click to expand...
No.

Just know I couldn't get it up for a bloke and followed logic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom