What is a pedophile?

[Merle Noir]

Bettina what is so terrible about acceptance. I'm not talking about condoning abuse but simply saying I accept you and will judge you as an individual and a human... is that really so terrible thing to ask for. I mean really and truly let me repeat it again... Accepted as an INDIVIDUAL and a HUMAN. Man am I not despicable to ask for just that small bit.

 

While your googling Pedophile take a look at some of the news stories. You'll all to frequently find pedophiles described as a 'predator' one that preys, destroys, or devours 2. an animal that lives by predation. Or this other common term that can be found at the top of the link provided by Coral Rhedd "uncover the truth in the faces of monsters" -http://www.plf.net/robinsbiowriting/respaper.htm- I'm not even afforded the dignity of being called a human, I'm less then human, because for what ever reason, but reasons out of my control, am attracted to children, so I must not be human. This is not unusual, hated segments of society are often made to be less then human. Slavery was justified as blacks where less then human. Women denied the vote because they where incapable of intelligent logical thought. It's rationalization used to excuse inappropriate behavior, just as a pedophile that engages in sex with a child rationalizes that its OK and acceptable. In both cases the rationalization is dangerous.

 

Simply because of my attraction I'm subjected to laws that apply to no one else. Extra-jurisdictional laws are created and excused because of the hatred of Pedophiles. I'm sure you're willing to accept the idea of the government enforcing its laws outside its jurisdiction on pedophiles because pedophiles are horrible evil monsters, but this creates a dangerous precedent. Pedophiles in many locations are not afforded the right to face their accuser or even afforded the right to view the evidence to be used against them. Once again its excused because we are talking about the horrific acts done by a pedophile, thus suspension of civil rights can thusly be justified.

 

I don't see how asking to be accepted is such a terrible thing. I'm not asking for laws to be change although I do think in some cases they should be changed. That is a discussion to be had human to human not human to predator or monster.

 

No one is even asking that your empathies not be directed towards the child that is a victim of sexual abuse, or that you not hate someone for their actions against a child. What we are asking for is to be judged and evaluated like all humans, based on our actions not on the actions of someone else or the fear of some mythical monster.

 

So once again... what is so terrible about asking to be accepted as an individual and a human?

[klanger]

Merle Noir

 

You have said on several occasions that though you have these feelings you dont actually fulfill your desires with regard to children, be them pre-pubescent or otherwise. I think if you are able to restrain yourself in this manner then you should be applauded. I do however have a question for you, if you wouldnt mind answering it truthfully.

 

Do you own have borrowed or by other means ever looked at pictures of naked children?

[Callipygous]

Do you own have borrowed or by other means ever looked at pictures of naked children?

 

im going to bet that most of the teenage boys in this day and age have seen pictures of naked prepubescent girls. i know i have. this is the age of the internet, which means when the horny teenagers are getting their fix they turn to things like Kazaa. Every now and then when your looking for some fun pictures you get a couple that shouldnt be there...(in numerous catagories, "lolita" is only one of the types of pictures that can show up that make you regret turning to the internet)

[klanger]

Ok then I shall re-phrase it and ask the same question preceding it with "other than by accident"

[GreenDestiny]

Do you own have borrowed or by other means ever looked at pictures of naked children?

 

Strange question, who hasn't at some point seen naked children, be it in a biology book or on TV. Nudity isn't really unnatural or something like that.

 

If you were referring to child pornography, I might not be remembering it correctly, but didn't Merle Noir already say that he does not look at this?

 

Well, anyway, there are also many legal pictures of boys out there (well, although not all naked) one can look at, so probably not every pedophile will download child porn, if that is what you're aiming at.

[Merle Noir]

Merle Noir

 

Do you own have borrowed or by other means ever looked at pictures of naked children?

Yes I own and have looked at such pictures, whats the big deal there? I can go into most any book store and look at pics of naked children as well, so whats the big deal. I can go into my local travel office and pick up catalogs with pictures of naked children in it, ohhh lord help us. I can even go to my local video store and rent movies with naked children in it. I can also go to the beach and see actual naked children there... so whats the big deal? reminds me of a friend of mine, he recommended the film Titanic to an American colleague... The colleague complained about this recommendation as he had taken his family to see it. My friend apologized as he forgot about the violence and death at the end, and that it might not be so appropriate for some children. No the guy had no problem with that it was the couple seconds of nudity that had him upset.

[Merle Noir]

Strange question, who hasn't at some point seen naked children, be it in a biology book or on TV. Nudity isn't really unnatural or something like that.

 

Actually I was puzzled my self at first. Looking at his location I just saw Hampshire and assumed NEW Hampshire, USA so figured while they are much stricter then Germany, child nudity is still legal, but now that I see it is the UK and not USA I realize that a picture in the UK need not even include nudity to be considered Porn. Children in underwear and speedos are porn as well as pictures posed erotically, which I understand is up to the judge to define Erotic, are considered porn. Along with probably a few of the programs broadcast on Kinder Kanal although maybe motion pictures are a little more relaxed on nudity.

[Callipygous]

Yes I own and have looked at such pictures, whats the big deal there? I can go into most any book store and look at pics of naked children as well, so whats the big deal. I can go into my local travel office and pick up catalogs with pictures of naked children in it, ohhh lord help us. I can even go to my local video store and rent movies with naked children in it. I can also go to the beach and see actual naked children there... so whats the big deal?

 

i dont know about germany, but in the US you are unlikely to find pictures of naked children in any of those places, and there arent many nude beaches. your best bet would probably be the book store, but even in that your more likely to find a sketch or a diagram in a medical or science text than an actual picture.

 

 

and you will find absolutely no nudity on tv.

[GreenDestiny]

i dont know about germany' date=' but in the US you are unlikely to find pictures of naked children in any of those places, and there arent many nude beaches. your best bet would probably be the book store, but even in that your more likely to find a sketch or a diagram in a medical or science text than an actual picture.

 

 

and you will find absolutely no nudity on tv.[/quote']

 

Well, I think there are quite a number of nude beaches here, although I'm not very often at the beach. There might even be nude people on normal beaches. As for books, nudity can sometimes be found in art. There's also a good deal of European movies with nudity in it. Well, I guess there are some differences between countries, but at least foreign movies are also available in the US.

[Phi for All]

Another thing that scares me is the amount of views this thread has recieved in the short time it has been here. I wonder if it is just curiosity, or are there a lot more pedophiles lurking around than I think.

Actually, the ratio of views to replies is half that of the homosexuality thread, and significantly lower than most other threads. This is merely the longest thread in the Psychology sub-forum, and to that I attribute the fact that everyone is allowing the quest for knowledge to overcome their potential desire to flame out and get the thread closed.

 

Nothing will change my mind that adult sex with prepubescent children is wrong, but no one seems to be telling me that it isn't. Many things that attract us are capable of being avoided with restraint, common sense and concern.

[klanger]

Yes I own and have looked at such pictures, whats the big deal there? I can go into most any book store and look at pics of naked children as well, so whats the big deal. I can go into my local travel office and pick up catalogs with pictures of naked children in it, ohhh lord help us. I can even go to my local video store and rent movies with naked children in it. I can also go to the beach and see actual naked children there... so whats the big deal? reminds me of a friend of mine, he recommended the film Titanic to an American colleague... The colleague complained about this recommendation as he had taken his family to see it. My friend apologized as he forgot about the violence and death at the end, and that it might not be so appropriate for some children. No the guy had no problem with that it was the couple seconds of nudity that had him upset.

 

The point is although you say you wouldn't physically have sex with a child, [so haven't hurt them], the fact that you have extensive knowledge of where to go to obtain pornagraphic pictures of kids, means that you have encouraged the abuse, albeit second hand, you didn't do it yourself so you are blameless? innocent? So were those kids before those people got hold of them. I am sure if I looked hard enough, I too could get those kinds of pictures, even the legitimate ones in the medical books or educational videos, the difference is I don't because I am not interested in children in that way.

 

Children are something to be treasured, not next seasons fancy, they are not toys to play with and toss aside when they grow out of what ever phase of growth you prefer. You can gloss over what you are however you please, if it makes you feel comfortable then so be it. The simple truth is that what you desire is illegal and for those countries where it is consider "normal", I suggest perhaps you go live there, then you can do what you like, when you like.

 

You have admitted that you do in fact view this pornographic material, however frequent or infrequent that may be. This in itself states that you are supporting this gross and illegal act (with regard to child porography) with innocent children. You may not have been there to "do the deed" but you are supporting it by craving it, viewing it, and whatever else you may so please to do with it. THAT is the bottom line. If it's deemed illegal in most civilized countries in the world, this means that you're always and forever a thought away from carrying out the action of child molestation. Based on this thought process, this means that you strongly need to seek serious professional help. If such services exists, you and others like yourself need to self-enroll in a program that tracks you as well as assist the change in your (by society's standards) twisted thinking/desires.

 

With regards to feeling any sympathy or empathy for your problem, as it has already been once suggested, yes, you and others like you are human, with all the failings that we as humans have, but so are mass murderers but no one in their right mind would feel sympathy for a murderer, or even begin to understand their twisted reasonings for doing what they did.

[Skye]

no one in their right mind would feel sympathy for a murderer, or even begin to understand their twisted reasonings for doing what they did.

Obviously you've never had to deal with a sizeable bureaucracy.

[reverse]

Strange topic.

 

What annoys me is the way everyone else has to be extra careful because of a few deviants.

 

And on a side note, it’s not fair that kids can streak all around the beach and adults have to wear clothes.

 

I suppose you have to keep your car keys somewhere.

[klanger]

Obviously you've never had to deal with a sizeable bureaucracy.

 

Please elaborate this post

[GreenDestiny]

The point is although you say you wouldn't physically have sex with a child' date=' [so haven't hurt them'], the fact that you have extensive knowledge of where to go to obtain pornagraphic pictures of kids, means that you have encouraged the abuse, albeit second hand, you didn't do it yourself so you are blameless? innocent? So were those kids before those people got hold of them.

 

Well, first I think this argument isn't completely valid, because in fact if someone just downloads some pictures, there doesn't always emerge any additional harm from that. Only in cases where the abuser receives money or some other kind of positive feedback for it, the child porn consumer would cause harm. But I don't want to argue for the legalization of child porn. The whole discussion of the issue should only be a bit calmer, more rational and more goal-oriented, but I still think that looking at pictures of children of whom you know that they have been abused and had to suffer for these pictures is something which I would consider immoral.

 

I am sure if I looked hard enough, I too could get those kinds of pictures, even the legitimate ones in the medical books or educational videos, the difference is I don't because I am not interested in children in that way.

 

That's good for you. But in which way is this relevant to the discussion?

 

Children are something to be treasured, not next seasons fancy, they are not toys to play with and toss aside when they grow out of what ever phase of growth you prefer.

 

I absolutely agree with you about this. Children should really be treasured, although that isn't always the case in today's society.

 

You have admitted that you do in fact view this pornographic material, however frequent or infrequent that may be.

 

Pardon me, but where did he say this? Not every picture of a child is pornographic. You are twisting his words...

 

Also comparing pedophiles in general to murderers is not only offending, it's ludicrous. That's what I meant in my first posting - why can't people stay rational when this topic comes up? It doesn't make any sense to put a whole group of people in a corner, applying dismissive labels to them and accusing them of the vilest of things which are only true for a fraction of them.

[reverse]

klangar,

 

He's saying that even the most mild natured person can be driven to want to choke the living daylights out of the smug cold face person calmly stonewalling you over technical issues when real life crises are close on your tail.

[klanger]

[quote name=GreenDestiny

 

Also comparing pedophiles in general to murderers is not only offending' date=' it's ludicrous. That's what I meant in my first posting - why can't people stay rational when this topic comes up? It doesn't make any sense to put a whole group of people in a corner, applying dismissive labels to them and accusing them of the vilest of things which are only true for a fraction of them.[/quote]

 

I agree it is offensive, murderers have some scruples which is why pedophiles are put into isolation. Prison sentences are much the same though.

[Merle Noir]

Hehe Ohhhh klanger nice try I must say but apparently your so eager to fit me into your pre-conceived ideas that you don't even read what I wrote. So if I am to understand you correctly I am supporting the Pornography industry... Well I must say this will come as shocking news to many. I was not aware all this time that Paramount, Universal pictures and others are in the Child Pornography industry and are abusing children (actually on the second point might be a bit more ture )... I'm sure many Museums will also be pleased to learn they are in the Child Pornography industry as well. Yes we should certainly clothe The David and get this filthy child pornography out of Florence. Shame, shame on Michelangelo.

 

What I have was produced legally... purchased legally in legally operating respected stores with out the abuse of the boys involved. The fact the UK classifies them as porn does not mean that children where abused or are a part of the Child Porn industry.

 

The point is although you say you wouldn't physically have sex with a child, [so haven't hurt them'], the fact that you have extensive knowledge of where to go to obtain pornagraphic pictures of kids, means that you have encouraged the abuse, albeit second hand, you didn't do it yourself so you are blameless? innocent? So were those kids before those people got hold of them. I am sure if I looked hard enough, I too could get those kinds of pictures, even the legitimate ones in the medical books or educational videos, the difference is I don't because I am not interested in children in that way.

 

It's all fine that you think you don't look at these legitimate so call child porn. I'm not talking Medical books... Ever scene the Movie Angela's Ashes I would guess not since I'm sure you're not gonna support this child porn industry.... Take a look again if you dare... Ohhhh my god Child nudity. How about Pelle the Adventurer, or Lord of the Flies (1963). Ever heard of Sally Mann. She has been accused of producing Child Porn but nudity in and of itself is not pornography, and for that reason the charges where dropped although beware in the UK it most likely IS considered porn. Take a look at all this Pornography that people support when they visit museums... if you dare it does contain child nudity and we all know of the child porn industry located in New York Museums. -http://www.nymuseums.com/ps02101t.htm-

 

I'm sorry but just because the UK is in the midst of mass hysteria over pedophilia with many other countries hot on its heals does not mean that everything illegal in the UK is truly porn in which a child was abused to produce it. The UK has taken such ridiculously draconian and shameful steps justified on the hatred of Pedophiles the British should be concerned about their civil liberties.

[Callipygous]

drawings and sculptures are not pornography. as for tapes/pictures/whatever with the boys who werent abused in the production, if it is porn, and they are prepubescent, it was abuse, whether it was consenting or not. exposing a child to sexuality before they develope enough to be ready for it causes psychological trauma. its abuse.

[reverse]

Look guys,

can I draw a parallel here.

 

I'm not an alcoholic right.

so I look at a bottle of whiskey and just see an interesting bottle.

 

but I don’t think an alcoholic would have that same reaction to the exact same stimuli ( bottle )

 

Same with Ladies shoes, they look damn uncomfortable to me, but I don’t think a fashion conscious women would see what I see, or experience the same lack of interest.

 

So your argument is not so good.

[Merle Noir]

if it is porn, and they are prepubescent, it was abuse,

 

Thats totally illogical. In my Local newspaper it is legal for them to use child models to show childrens underwear and many of them do. In the UK that exact same image is Class 1 Child Porn. So since in the UK its Porn the child was by your logic abused but in Germany the exact same image magically is Abuse free, HOW?

[Callipygous]

Thats totally illogical. In my Local newspaper it is legal for them to use child models to show childrens underwear and many of them do. In the UK that exact same image is Class 1 Child Porn. So since in the UK its Porn the child was by your logic abused but in Germany the exact same image magically is Abuse free, HOW?

 

 

the people in UK are idiots. kids modeling underwear is not porn, porn requires a sexual element.

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography

 

 

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

[Bettina]

Lastly I hope I don't hurt anyone either. On a simplistic level and being a bit of a semantic jerk I've already hurt many people... its inevitable... but in terms of the kind of hurt your fearful of... the kind associated with pedophilia... all I can say is when I've been in situations where I was tempted to allow my desires to get the better of me I've excused myself from the boys and got myself under control. That does not mean it will always work but I think being open and honest and talking with people about it helps me keep the proper moral balance that keeps me from crossing a line that could cause problems.

 

For awhile, I was beginning to think I was wrong about you, but when I read your last few posts, it made me go back and check a few things.

 

In post 204 above, you admit your being tempted. That makes you different from me and all normal people.

In post 207 your wishing the Aoc laws could be changed to benefit people like you. Please tell me what age your interested in.

 

In Post 381 you state you own pictures of naked children. I would also make a bet that they would be naked little boys, and I do mean little. Just a guess on my part....no facts.

 

Those posts above disturb me greatly. You have stated your desire to be understood and accepted as a "non hurting anyone" kind of pedophile. But what you consider "non hurting" is very different than mine and other normal people. If you were truly a pedophile who is under control, you would continue a very near normal life. Nobody would know that you crave little kids. You would not be on a bulletin board posting your feelings. You would not in your last few posts tell everyone that you continue to buy and keep naked pictures of kids.

 

So....Why are you here. I'll tell you why in a nutshell. I don't believe you. I think your a 35 year old pedophile who is getting older and is on the edge of losing control. I think you dream of going to a country where you have a better shot at being legal with little boys. I wouldn't trust you with any child no matter what age and I would be very cautious of you if you were near me.

 

No offense, but you need a shrink.

 

Bettina

[Merle Noir]

Look guys' date='

can I draw a parallel here.

 

I'm not an alcoholic right.

so I look at a bottle of whiskey and just see an interesting bottle.

 

but I don’t think an alcoholic would have that same reaction to the exact same stimuli ( bottle )

 

Same with Ladies shoes, they look damn uncomfortable to me, but I don’t think a fashion conscious women would see what I see, or experience the same lack of interest.

 

So your argument is not so good.[/quote']

 

Good point and analogy. US law actually tries to take this into consideration in that if they can prove that a picture is viewed erotically it can be considered porn. However it is not sufficient to simply say that because a person is a pedophile they view the image erotically. The police find the law virtually un-enforceable. A person would need to express some way that would be usable in court to show they view that picture erotically. For example I don't generally view artistic nudity erotically. I enjoy it the same way I enjoy a well sculpted Ferrari so my nudity is not porn but there are pictures I find erotic that if I say labeled them with "boys I'd like to have sex with" I might in the US be convicted of possessing porn.

 

However the question beyond that is if no abuse took place in its creation, if it is deemed authentically artistic and the boy that is the child that is the subject never feels abused by it, but a pedophile is aroused and uses it for sexual stimulations where is the harm in it? You may find the idea of a pedophile looking at such images disgusting and repulsive but is that reason to suspend civil liberties of everyone. The UK basically uses the slippery slope argument to ban or restrict more and more images and even the production of images because of fear that Pedophiles may also produce or look at such images. Schools have banned cameras at school plays because pedophiles may be taking pictures at school plays. So what if they are... they may be watching the kids as well maybe they should just ban school plays or maybe we should even require burkas for children until they are of age of consent. The slippery slope argument taken to its natural conclusion is in and of itself a slippery slope.

[GreenDestiny]

Those posts above disturb me greatly. You have stated your desire to be understood and accepted as a "non hurting anyone" kind of pedophile. But what you consider "non hurting" is very different than mine and other normal people. If you were truly a pedophile who is under control' date=' you would continue a very near normal life. Nobody would know that you crave little kids. You would not be on a bulletin board posting your feelings. You would not in your last few posts tell everyone that you continue to buy and keep naked pictures of kids.

[/quote']

 

So according to you it is immoral if pedophiles talk about their feelings on a bulletin board? It is immoral to watch perfectly legal motion pictures which happen to feature scenes with nude boys? Regarding the latter, I suppose it's only immoral if a pedophile watches one of those movies, because of his 'impure' thoughts? Well, this doesn't sound very convincing to me.