• 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

isissxn

I don't actually give a fat rat's arse what you do. If you have rape fantasies, that's fine. If you enjoy having them, then that's fine too, what ever rocks your boat... THAT IS YOUR RIGHT!

However, I am allowed to think that the idea of anyone having a rape fantasy is perverted. That is MY opinion, MY morality. I find the idea of rape fantasy disgusting. THAT IS MY RIGHT!

Now you've changed the argument altogether. The point wasn't to make you think rape fantasies are good, but to make you realise that thought doesn't beget action. We're trying to tell you something important, here, but you are blinded by bigotry.
 
cullenz. This is what some people do when they can't debate honestly.

They cannot address your point without undermining their own position, so they will drag in other irrelevant topics to try confuse the issue and obfuscate their own failure to address your point.

It wasn't you or I who dragged rape fantasy, torture, murder or peanut butter and the other irrelevant stuff into this thread or your original thread.

What an incredibly dishonest post. You have lost any respect I used to have for you as a poster.
 
That is completely unlike anything anyone's said in this thread. If you spent less time being outraged at things you don't understand, you might actually learn something.
Outraged at what?

All I have said up till now about rape fantasies is I haven't had one.

Don't know really if they are bad or not

I'm just following your opinion to its logical conclusion

If it makes you feel uncomfortable this isn't my fault
 

Because none of it is relevant to what this thread is about (Language and Labels), and neither is it relevant to the original thread this was split from, a thread (started by jimbob) about the Australian Roman Catholic Church sending five, known child molesting priests to the same Parish.

jimbob used the term "paedophile priests" in his title. This resulted in some of the hand-wringing pedantistas (the usual suspects) on this forum taking umbrage at his use of the terminology despite the fact that, rightly or wrongly, the term paedophile has for at least the last thirty years, become synonymous with child molestation.

While some of us wanted to discus the despicable actions of the Australian Catholic Church, the pedantistas were only interested browbeating us with their insistent harping on about the using or correct terminology. The thread was derailed to such a point that the mods felt it necessary to split off the terminology discussion to a separate thread (this one)

Not happy with derailing the original thread, the usual suspects set about derailing this one too, introducing irrelevant things to the discussion, such as rape fantasies, murder, torture, personal tastes, violent books, movies and video games, and, of all things, peanut butter (go figure).

All of of these derails have nothing to do with a discussion about five RC priests being sent to the same Parish, and nothing to do with a discussion about correct terminology with regard to Paedophiles and Child Molesters.
 
And I lost all respect for you when it dawned on me that you think its acceptable for adult males having fantasies in which they rape pre-pubescent children.

As I said: you believe in thought policing people. You are an authoritarian and the antithesis of liberal democracy. I don't give a **** what people believe of fantasize about. I care about what they do. You've convinced yourself that they are one and the same because you've given up on reason and rationality.

Good for you. I'm sure your fact-free worldview feels great.
 
The topic of rape fantasies wasn't brought up talking about women having them.

And there have been posters on here saying blokes having them are perfectly fine.

All good.

But you can't pick and chose.

Jesus, cullenz. Who is acting out my fantasies with me if not a man with similar proclivities? You can't draw that kind of line in the sand. Well, I mean, obviously you can - but not if consistent internal logic matters to you.

I spoke primarily in defense of the female actor in these scenarios because a.) I have a bit of firsthand experience in that regard, and b.) the inflammatory statement by smartcooky which fueled me to post was made about the pertinent women, specifically. First the easily-disproven claim that we are a small fringe group, followed closely by the value judgment that we're ********** up and that's a BAD thing.

It IS perfectly fine for my "bloke" to imagine the same things I'm imagining while we act out our nasty ways all over our sinful little apartment. Why does gender make a difference?
 
cullenz. This is what some people do when they can't debate honestly.

They cannot address your point without undermining their own position, so they will drag in other irrelevant topics to try confuse the issue and obfuscate their own failure to address your point.

It wasn't you or I who dragged rape fantasy, torture, murder or peanut butter and the other irrelevant stuff into this thread or your original thread.

I love how people only start whinging about the use of analogies or parallel thought experiments when the results hurt their original arguments.
 
Jesus, cullenz. Who is acting out my fantasies with me if not a man with similar proclivities? You can't draw that kind of line in the sand. Well, I mean, obviously you can - but not if consistent internal logic matters to you.

I spoke primarily in defense of the female actor in these scenarios because a.) I have a bit of firsthand experience in that regard, and b.) the inflammatory statement by smartcooky which fueled me to post was made about the pertinent women, specifically. First the easily-disproven claim that we are a small fringe group, followed closely by the value judgment that we're ********** up and that's a BAD thing.

It IS perfectly fine for my "bloke" to imagine the same things I'm imagining while we act out our nasty ways all over our sinful little apartment. Why does gender make a difference?

I have no particular opinion on sex fantasies.

All I said is if you say illegal rape fantasies are fine then it ain't rocket science to conclude you also think illegal child rape fantasies are fine.

The gender difference with the children side of things is obvious
 
I should add it was you lot that brought up rape fantasies on a pedo thread.

So we can only assume their linked
 
Are there truly still people in this thread who think "blokes" like mine get off on the idea of actually raping a crying, screaming, terrified, resisting victim? Is it their understanding that I (and all the adventurous ladies like me, lining the pockets of that illiterate hack who wrote 50 Shades) get off on the notion of actually being raped by a hostile, violent overpowerer with whom I genuinely do not wish to lie?

If so, that might be your problem. There's a world of difference between "rape fantasies" and straight-up rape fetish. The latter is considered a pathology (like pedophilia!) because indulging the urge involves harming a NON-CONSENTING and/or NON-ADULT (and therefore, non-consenting by definition) victim. The other is a god damn fantasy acted out by two consenting freaks who are into the same thing and want to make each other happy. Who is ANYONE to say that's not okay?

It's not getting off on the fantasy of committing an actual crime, because both people want it to happen! They just like to add a little spice, via pirate characters, bodices, silky ropes, and whatever the hell else they please. Comparing any facet of such sexual indulgence to the unspeakable crime of child sexual molestation is *********** deranged.
 
I have no particular opinion on sex fantasies.

All I said is if you say illegal rape fantasies are fine then it ain't rocket science to conclude you also think illegal child rape fantasies are fine.
The gender difference with the children side of things is obvious

There is no hope for you if you really can't see the difference. There is nothing illegal about two adults role-playing a rapey fantasy upon which they've agreed. Contrarily, there is NO scenario in which having sexual contact with an actual child could be safely or legally enacted.

And that last part of your post - WAT? Please elaborate. Are you saying that it's worse for a child of one gender to experience molestation than the other? Or do you mean that molestation by a male adult would be more traumatic for a child than same by a female adult?

Either way, generally speaking, you are way off. And sexist. Gross.
 
Last edited:
Are there truly still people in this thread who think "blokes" like mine get off on the idea of actually raping a crying, screaming, terrified, resisting victim? Is it their understanding that I (and all the adventurous ladies like me, lining the pockets of that illiterate hack who wrote 50 Shades) get off on the notion of actually being raped by a hostile, violent overpowerer with whom I genuinely do not wish to lie?

If so, that might be your problem. There's a world of difference between "rape fantasies" and straight-up rape fetish. The latter is considered a pathology (like pedophilia!) because indulging the urge involves harming a NON-CONSENTING and/or NON-ADULT (and therefore, non-consenting by definition) victim. The other is a god damn fantasy acted out by two consenting freaks who are into the same thing and want to make each other happy. Who is ANYONE to say that's not okay?

It's not getting off on the fantasy of committing an actual crime, because both people want it to happen! They just like to add a little spice, via pirate characters, bodices, silky ropes, and whatever the hell else they please. Comparing any facet of such sexual indulgence to the unspeakable crime of child sexual molestation is *********** deranged.
Irrelevant to rape fantasy
 
I should add it was you lot that brought up rape fantasies on a pedo thread.

So we can only assume their linked

There's this thing called analogies that can be helpful in debate when a participants' viewpoint has become too entrenched to allow even consideration of outside factors. Unfortunately, they often become the straw from which The Man is constructed when the entrenched person decides to throw an emotional hissy fit instead of considering honest points in a dispassionate way.

I can go all night. Keep flailing.
 
There is no hope for you if you really can't see the difference. There is nothing illegal about two adults role-playing a rapey fantasy upon which they've agreed. Contrarily, there is NO scenario in which having sexual contact with an actual child could be safely or legally enacted.

And that last part of your post - WAT? Please elaborate. Are you saying that it's worse for a child of one gender to experience molestation than the other? Or do you mean that molestation by a male adult would be more traumatic for a child than same by a female adult?

Either way, generally speaking, you are way off. And sexist. Gross.
That was not what was brought up
 
Irrelevant to rape fantasy

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. :rolleyes:
 
There's this thing called analogies that can be helpful in debate when a participants' viewpoint has become too entrenched to allow even consideration of outside factors. Unfortunately, they often become the straw from which The Man is constructed when the entrenched person decides to throw an emotional hissy fit instead of considering honest points in a dispassionate way.

I can go all night. Keep flailing.
You are talking about fetish sex.

Not rape fantasy.

Can you guess the difference?
 
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. :rolleyes:
No.

Your talking about fetish sex.

Irrelevant
 
You are talking about fetish sex.

Not rape fantasy.

Can you guess the difference?

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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
 
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?
 
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

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.
 
All I said is if you say illegal rape fantasies are fine then it ain't rocket science to conclude you also think illegal child rape fantasies are fine.

There is nothing illegal about two adults role-playing a rapey fantasy upon which they've agreed. [Contrarily, there is NO scenario in which having sexual contact with an actual child could be safely or legally enacted].

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!!!
 
You cannot use the acceptability of rape fantasy as an analogy to justify acceptability of paedophilia fantasy!!!

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.
 
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
 
Because having a wank can get boring

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.
 
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.
 
The argument is and has been it isnt worth the risk for either the care provider or the pedo.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom