A man with no viewpoint is seldem wrong - Unknown
Captain Cynic Guides
Administrative Contact
Talk Talk
Philosophy Forum
Religion Forum
Psychology Forum
Politics & Current Events Forum
Science & Technology Forum
Health & Wellness Forum
Sexuality & Intimacy Forum
Product Reviews
Stories & Poetry Forum
Art Forum
Movie/TV Reviews
Jokes & Games
Photos, Videos & Music Forum

Paedophilia - Page 13

User Thread
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
Both are biologically somewhat unnatural (you can't really reproduce and create a family with a member of your own sex or a small child).


They are not unnatural. They perfectly fit into the universal and natural law.

NORMAL DISTRIBUITION

This is the keyword.

If all men were attracted to women, then humans would be against natural law.

Infact you won't never find in the universe a phenomenon which can be described with a single variable.

There many variables, and all together form the NORMAL DISTRIBUITION: there are variables more common, and other less common.

The evolution has put heterosexuality at the top of the normal distribution, and pedophilia and homosexuality at the left or right.
Less common variables are as much natural as most common variables.

Having a feature that is at the right or the left of the curve doesn't mean having a disease. It simply means having an atypical, perfectly natural, feature.

BTW I bet that homsoexuality and pedophilia are not so atypical!
Very diffuse, I would say!

quote:
Here's a question - is your attraction asexual? Boy or girl?


What do you mean by asexual?

I discovered my pedosexuality with preteen boys, but I am also into preteen girls now.
The exclusive thing I surely know is that I like children!
The preference between boys and girls changes with the time, while the age preference is always the same.

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
"if you are part of that or if whatever it is that you desire is actually a psychological reaction to your environment? "


What does it matter? I think it is quite obvious that everything of us is partially genetical and partially a reaction of our environment.


quote:
"Why do you think your attraction is not consistently directed at one specific sex? Do you think that's simply because everyone is bisexual? "


No, I don't think that we are all bisexual.
I neither label myself as a bisexual.
I call myself a "pedosexual", which in my mind means having an attraction which will be ALWAYS primarily directed to children. A pedosexual can then have a secondary preference for boys or girls.

Why am I attracted to both girls and boys? Because they have very similar physical features.

That's why in general pedophiles don't have a strong fixation for children of one gender. They a preference, but not a fixation.

The fixation is for CHILDREN.

If, for example, a man is attracted to little girls, it is very likely that he will have at least some attraction to little boys too. If you like the body of little girls, how can you have repulsion to the body of little boys? It's the same.

The real line is between children and adults. If you like little boys, it is unlikely that you will like men. More probably, your second choice will be little girls.

You can be attracted to femininity, to masculinity or neutrality.

Pedosexuals are attracted to neutrality (infact peculiar features of children are not related to one gender), which is pedosexuality.

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
Do you feel it would be bad for you to be able to have sex with a child? In other words, do you think that despite your own craving children are capable of being sexual with you?


Well.... children can be consensual, so it's not necessary to hurt a child for having sex with him.

This not an opinion, but a matter of fact.

I have never had sex with a child, but I know that there are many pedophiles who have had, during their life, sexual relationships (not abuse) with prepubescent children.

There is also a book about it, written by an italian pedophile who was arrested for having sex with children.

He said that the children are all adults now and they are still sorry for what happened.

(the pedophile was not reported by the children, but by other persons)

So, I don't think there is something bad in being pedosexuals.

Pedophilia is ostracized for moral issues. There is nothing objectively bad if the child is consensual.

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
Can you explain a social dynamic (idealistically) where the environment caters to a child being able to make that consensual decision and it providing that child a free well thought out decision?


I think during our life we have to make some decisions: some have to be rationally thought (for example: signing a contract), others have to be istinctive (for example: when you have to choose what to eat at the restaurant).

Get married is the same as signing a contract, but on the other hand is also istinctive.

A sexual relationship, on the other hand, is simply istinctive. If you feel that all things are going well, go on. If you feel that something is going badly, stop it.
Simply istinctive: if you like the person, you like spending time with him/her, you feel pleasure when you are with the person, go on.

Children are not able to make rational decision as well as adults (because rationality needs a lot of knowledge), but they are able to make istinctive decisions as well as adults.
Because istinctive decisions simply mean "feeling our emotions".

I am not in favour of children marriage, but I don't see anything bad in a "short" relationship with an adult.

If the child get pleasure from the pedohile, who are we for saying that is a bad thing?

quote:
Because it seems to me that right now, the way it is, most children are not able to feel sexual at a very young age because they don't understand sexuality, or perhaps, they are socially displaced from being sexual with those they may desire.


You are wrong.

My personal experience: I have been able to get orgasms and erections as soon as I can remember.
I can't remember any period of my life where I wasn't able to get both.

At a very going age (6-7 years old) I wanked with many kinds of thoughts.
One of the first part of body which turned me on were feet and backside.

Around 9-10 my wank-time-thoughts concerned explicit erotic scenaries with other children (little girls and little boys).

The exclusive reason for what I didn't have sex with an other child, is that I didn't have any occasion.

And, on an other hand I felt strange because there wasn't any sexual education at school and it was difficult to rationally understand what was happening and what was the sense of these feelings.

When a child goes to the toilette, knows what is the meaning, because at school they teach the digestion process.

When it comes to sex and genitals, children are ignorant simply because noone teach them and so they have to indipendently learn everything.

It is like to practice flying without any instructor: you fly the plane, but you don't know exactly what you are doing. You could learn strange ideas about flying.

When I was a child, I was able to fly the plane, but I hadn't any instructor and MOST IMPORTANT THINGS I didn't know that other children and persons in general were flying like me. So I felt alone in the sky and I wasn't able to find any copilot.

I call that: childsexualityphobia. Adults have some kind of phobia towards child sexuality, so they don't teach them anything, you can't speak of sex when there is a child, and so on...
This is the root of antipedophilia.

Sex is considered something similar to alchool: you can drink it, but only if you are an adult.

The pedophile is the pusher who gives kids the so terrible poison called SEX.

This is scarying, because sex is a perfectly natural thing, and not a poison like alchool and cigarettes.


quote:
Do you think if society was more open about sex that children would naturally feel sexual at a younger age?


There are children who actually have sex. And I am speaking about intercourse too: I met many adults during my life who told me they had sexual experiences when they were children.
A friend of mine was discovered by his father and beaten by him.

Childsexualityphobia is really scarying!

But fortunately it can't repress natural istinct of children, so, although child sexuality is ostrecized, child sexual experiences are diffuse, but it is an underground phenomenon: you don't know about it. That's why you think that children are not having sex.

quote:
What is the age threshold? Or is sexuality a natural part of all humans from birth onwards?


Every age has its own sexuality and sexual pleasure. The sexual desires of a 6 years old are not usually the same as that of a 10 years old, and the sexual desires of a 10 years old are not the same as that of an adult.

If an adult has sex with a child, must satisfy sexual desires of the child, and not his own desires.

If you are playing tennis table with a person who is not as much able like you, you could do two things: you destroy her.... or you try to play with her same level.
If you play at the same level as the the other person, he/she will be able to play well and he/she will enjoy.

When you get the ball from the child, the important thing is to not give him/her a feedback which is much stronger than the action.

A good pedophile equals to a good tennis table player.

quote:
Why is it then that in animals babies are not sexual until they reach a certain age?


I don't think they don't are sexual. The problems is that they can't express them, but probably they feel it.

According to Freud, little children try to get anal pleasure with their feces.
According to me, Freud was crazy, but I think that it would be not so strange if babies had some kind fo sexual pleasures.

BTW, I don't think that a baby or a little infant is able to have sex: they are not able to express their consent.
A primary school child is perfectly able to choose everything that is istnctive: they can perfectly express their desires.


quote:
Are there any animals where pedophilia exists? (to create a natural precedent)


Bonobos, cats,.....

But for obvious reasons, scientists don't speak about pedophilia in animalhood as much as they speak about homosexuality.

The funny thing is that if you watch documentaries about animal's homosexuality, you see some cases of same sex pedophilia. But they call it "homosexuality", not "pedophilia".

And when you talk with homosexuals they say that in the animalhood homosexuality exists but pedophilia doesn't.

Funny!


quote:
Regarding nature vs nurture, it matters greatly because being a pedophile is not a desirable way to be (at least in your current society) because children are not introduced to sexuality at a young age and pedophiles are persecuted. Therefore it makes sense to examine whether it is a dysfunction or if it is truly natural. You are claiming it is natural, I am saying that's possible, but its also possible it's the result of trauma.


And why not the result of positive living experiences?

I have met many pedophiles who during their childhood had sex with others children and they have very pleasant memories about it.

It is possible that when they think about children, their good sexual experiences of childhood come to their mind.

BTW, my opinion is that everyone of us born to be attracted to some physical features, and according to them, you DEVELOP your sexual orientation (living experiences).

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
The only discourse I have with the general notion in your point is the evidence supporting that young children are indeed sexual - you use yourself as a precedent and you use people you know as a precedent, but that is insufficient evidence for a third person to accept.


About child sexuality:

http://www.ethicaltreatment.org/research.htm

Research about sexual contacts and relationships between adults and children

http://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ux41q5lnp0642251

Most boys are 13+, but there are also two or three preteen boys



You have to change (dot) with .

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
This increases credence, but is still not evidence because I personally have a lot of experience finding "proof" on any variable of topics where the writer claims to be referencing a scientific study whereas the conclusions he/she has made based on that study are somewhat false, or the study itself was flawed.


I could ask you to prove that children are not sexual.
Can you show any evidence about that?

To me is simply logic that they have a sexuality, since I have had sexual urges during my whole life.

I can't understand how people can deny this.
Maybe it's because many persons have not clear memories about their childhood, which I have.


quote:
1) You, yourself, may be incapable of putting a child's interest above your own despite your thoughts to the contrary


How can you state this?

If I was in love with a child and had a relationship with him, I could probably die for him.
I have never felt true love, but I have an istinct or protection towards children I don't know, so what if I was in love with a child?


quote:
"Even if you are capable of putting a child's interest above your own, how would you convince the parents of this?"


Infact this is practically impossible.

And not only cause of the diffuse phobia towards child sexuality and pedophilia, but also because parents would be jelous.

Imagine if your son had a relationship with a man.
Even if you were open minded in respect of pedophilia, you would reject the relationship because you would be afraid that your son would take the man as his role model, and you, as a father, would feel peripheral.

Futhermore, if it is same sex pedophilia, many parents would say that the man is teaching homosexuality to the boy, which could be completely untrue (if a boy is consensual with a man, it is possible that he has had homosexual urges for long time before).

So, first of all, we have to fight against childsexualityphobia.
Then we have to delete prejudices and fear towards minoritary sexual orientations (pedosexuality and homosexuality).

But at the end.... jelousy remains. And we can't fight it.

So, probably not so many parents wouzld accept it, but at least we could fight for decriminalizing consensual pedophilia.

My suggestion is the following: if the child is younger than 14 years old, the parents could ask to a commission to analyze the dynamics of the sexual relationship.
If they can't find any trace of an abuse, then the pedophile shouldn't be arrested.

Obviously parents could stop it, but at least no one could criminalyze an innocent act.

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
Well logic dictates that until your body develops in a manner conducive to reproduction you will not be sexual since sexuality is biologically used for reproduction. Hence, scientifically a child is not supposed to be sexual because it holds no biological benefit. Since that is the case, it is up to you to offset this reasoning. I don't have to prove children are not sexual because that notion is consistent with biology.

That doesn't mean it's true - just means the base evidence favors it.


Your logic is quite fragile, and it's easy to show that to you.

"The purpose of sex is reproduction, so homosexuality and pedophilia don't exist"

Same logic.

The first phallacy in your logic is in strictly linking reproduction and sex.
Reproduction needs sex, but sex doesn't need reproduction.
It is a one-way-only correlation.

The second phallacy is to think that sex with no reproduction is an error or something unnatural.

If you believe in religion, you could think that we humans are programmes and god exactly knows what is the purpose of sex and so on...

But if you believe in science and evolution theory, then the logical conclusion is that everything is casual and there is no program.
This is exactly what I think.

Since humans are not like computers and don't have a "use hand manual", you can't know what is the purpose of sex.

Everyone can give to sex his own purpose.

Reproduction for sure is one possible purpose, but not the exclusive one. The other, which is probably the most important, is PLEASURE. Sex is a game.

Pleasure is probably the most important purpose of everyone of use, and not only for humans, but for animals too.

Non-procreative sex is diffuse in both animals and humans. Bonobos have both homosexual and pedophilic sex as much as they have heterosexual intercourse.

Humans? See "oral sex", "anal sex", homosexuality, pedophilia, and so on... I bet that most people fit somewhere in one or more of these kind of sexual acts.

So, to conclusion: children can't procreate, but they can feel sexual pleasure. Two diffrent things.

Little boys have dry orgasms. An other proof of the fact that sex/sexual pleasure and reproduction are not strictly linked.


quote:
This is precisely my point - you have been victimized


I have never said such thing. Could you please give me a citation? Or is it your invention?

quote:
But a child is not capable of rejecting you in the same way.


So, adults shoudn't play chess with children, because they can't reject it as well as adults.

The same reasoning could be done with every activity, but since humans have fear of sex and childsexuality they try to find an esxcuse to rationalize their fear.

BTW, a child is able to reject an adult. Infact I read about a pedophile who tried to have erotic contacts with little boys. Some boys rejected him, others were compliant.


quote:
A child may do so in extremely small subtle manners while constantly behaving as if they want it because they wish to appease you, or "do the right thing".


Adults shouldn't play chess with children, because it is likely that the child is playing only for "doing the right thing".

But humans don't have fear of chess.

| Permalink
 29yrs • M •
Learjet45 is new to Captain Cynic and has less than 15 posts. New members have certain restrictions and must fill in CAPTCHAs to use various parts of the site.
quote:
Sex is a biological creation, first and foremost, for the purpose of reproduction.


As I wrote, only god knows what is the purpose of sex. Only the creator can know it.
And you are not god.

Since I don't believe in god, I think that sex hasn't any objective purpose.

Everyone can give to hise sexuality and sexual experiences the purpose he/she wants.

The main purpose for me and most of my friends who are normal straight men) is pleasure.

Maybe in a fair/near future we will start to think about having a sohn and so we will add to sexuality an other purpose, but at the moment it is only pleasure and nothing more.

No one of us has got an error message by nature, so I think we will go on with our purpose of pleasure.

What is nature, if not an abstract entity?
Nature is made by us. We humans mostly use sexuality as a instrument of pleasure, so in human nature the main purpose of sex is pleasure.

I am not denying that if youw want to procreate you must perform an heterosexual intercourse.
I am denying that if you want to have sex, you have to perform a straight intercourse.

Where exactly did you read this? Do you have "Humans handmanual"?
Only the creator can know how his creation should work and what are he purposes of every part of his creation.

Are you god? Did you have a conversation with god?

Or maybe, were you able to speak with Nature? Is nature a person or an entity who speak or communciate in any way?

According to me, I am the nature. You are too. My cat, your mother, my sister are nature.

I am attracted to children and I am a part of nature. 4% of population is primarily attracted to children. Then attraction to children is natural.
We pedophiles, being the nature, we have decide that it is.


And finally, what is, for example, the purpose of mouth? Eating and breathing, I guess.
But we use mouth for kissing too.

But I bet you don't think that kissing is unnatural.


quote:
Sticking your penis into a six year old boy does not require the same fragile responsibility that playing chess does.


What about going cycling with a child?
Bycicles are statistically one of the most dangerous trasports, so it requires a lot of responsability.

But it seems that is not a problem if children go cycling.

Why? Because adults don't have cyclingphobia, while they have chidlsexuality phobia.

Probably sexuality requires some responsabilities, but not as much as cycling. With bycicle you can die. It is one of the worst transport in relation to annual deads.


quote:
If you could, then you are not a pedophile and your attraction is not towards children. If you can't, then it is not love you direct at them, but a fetish.


Since most adult relationships end with the time, I guess that most men and women don't represent a sexual orientation, but a fetish.

Ethernal love is rare in general, and some pedophiles continue the relationship after the child has reached puberty.
For sure, all pedophiles remain at least friends of the child.

| Permalink
 60yrs • M
A CTL of 1 means that Hobbes Choice is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
I think the OP is basically correct.
Sexual preferences are not choices.
There are some limits on this, however. It is possible to encourage and discourage your sexual preference.
For example: no one starts by thinking oral or anal sex is preferable to other forms of sex, and as we progress through our sexual experience it is often characterised by the overcoming of some forms of revulsion.
The idea of putting my mouth near the place where a woman pisses always put me off oral sex until I learned to love it. I image that the urge to paedophilia might also submit to some sort of revulsion, by contrast.
I wonder , if identified early, Paeophilia might be steered to older people?

I am glad to be able to say that homosexuality is now acceptable so that those born to love their own sex no longer have to suffer shame and ridicule. I'm not a homosexual myself but I do know some and am glad they are happy and at peace with their orientation. But what was in past, the unfortunate lot of homosexuals never to practice MUST be the lot of the paedophile: we do not live in a time when interfering with the bodies of children is acceptable.

The practice of Paedophilia HAS NO PLACE. It is the responsibility of each and every person who is so attracted to youth, never to act on that attraction.
Children deserve protection from the predation of a paedophile, and it matters not how you make excuses fro it; or try to understand it; a paedophile is by definition a person willing to impose his or her power over a defenceless child to have sexual gratification.
Sadly I do not think that any paedophile wishing to seek help is in any position to do that. There is no avenue for those afflicted with this urge to find help, and any attempt to do so will only be met with suspicion, stigma and horror.

For this reason I think the idea expressed in the top of this thread is not only true, but of great importance to promote so that the problem can be more widely understood an deal with in a safe way.
All we have at the moment is silence and concealment. We need to be able to be more open to prevent underground groups of paedophile rings working unseen. Those wishing to avoid acting need to feel safe to submit themselves for some sort of treatment.

| Permalink
Paedophilia - Page 13
  5    6    7    8    9    10    11    12    13  
About Captain Cynic
Common FAQ's
Captain Cynic Guides
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
General Forum Rules
Cynic Trust Levels
Administrative Contact Forum
Registration
Lost Password
General Discussion
Philosophy Forums
Psychology Forums
Health Forums
Quote Submissions
Promotions & Links
 Captain Cynic on Facebook
 Captain Cynic on Twitter
 Captain Cynic RSS Feed
 Daily Tasker
Copyright © 2011 Captain Cynic All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy