Paedophilia and Paedophiles:posts from the kinky forum

Resort to name calling? Nah, I just call it how I see it. ~child molester~

 

Libertine - I don't think she understands the situation:

YBH - please PM me.

 

Well, I hope you get it straightened out, IronGoth, because that was clearly disrespectful if that was aimed at me, YBH.

 

Libertine - I made the same mistake, it's gonna happen.

 

You and I worked it out, because we just had a miscommunication. We (you and I) were complete strangers. However, YBH knows me better than that, I'd think. And that was just uncalled for, IF it was aimed at me.

 

Do you have any PROOF that Leonard is a "child molestor"? Do you have his record? No, all you have is his posts which are FULL of scientific facts (whether you agree with him or not) and your emotional reaction to them.

So, going by that logic I could say "Yellow Belly Hippie is an adulteress who is having an affair with Heron, or at least she wants to". All based on my assessment of your posts. Not very fair, is it? But, alas, "just call'em like I see'em!"

I know you (I think) better than that. I know you are not that way, but by using your logic anyone could turn you into something you're not based on their assessment of your posts.

I see NO EVIDENCE to call anyone in this thread a "child molestor". The whole refutation of Leonard or anyone disagreeing with your viewpoint is based entirely on your disgust for those opinions and the pseudo-scientific mantra of psychological and physical "readiness". Don't get me wrong, I do believe in such "readiness", but where are your facts to back up what you say against what Leonard or Skip or even myself has said?

 

RE: Do you have any PROOF that Leonard is a "child molestor"? Do you have his record? No, all you have is his posts which are FULL of scientific facts (whether you agree with him or not) and your emotional reaction to them.

You raise a good point, but you have to understand that there's always gonna be visceral reactions to unpopular theories. I mean, there was that furore a while back with that "research" (the Bell curve was it?) that basically said blacks are genetically stupid. Though there were studies, etc. and "proofs" the whole damn thing was flawed. As was the research that states that gays are mentally ill and molest kids at a phenomenal rate (research promoted by ONE person funded by a Baptist church whose methodology is FAR from sound). Quite often in the "soft sciences" we end up with research that tries to "prove" something usually in the interest of the scientist. And it's highly suspicious and rightly so to many as to why ANYONE would want to find justifications for kiddie diddling.

We can't prove Leonard is a child molestor. But Leonard is advocating some pretty vile things. Things which have HURT people here. This isn't abstract, these are real people with real hurt, Libertine.

RE: I see NO EVIDENCE to call anyone in this thread a "child molestor". The whole refutation of Leonard or anyone disagreeing with your viewpoint is based entirely on your disgust for those opinions

Well frankly I share the same disgust, and YBH has already basically agreed with my non-disgust rebuttal. We're talking about human beings here Libertine, not cesium. For all intents and purposes YBH said she deferred to my rebuttal and spat abuse at Leonard.

RE: and the pseudo-scientific mantra of psychological and physical "readiness". Don't get me wrong, I do believe in such "readiness", but where are your facts to back up what you say against what Leonard or Skip or even myself has said?

Since when do we have "facts" in psychology? We don't. What we have is theories and models. Show me an id. Cut the brain open and find me an ego. Yet we use these terms to understand people, the most complex creatures of all.

There has been some research suggesting that pederasty isn't all bad. This has been rebutted, but like everything else the battle will always be ongoing. Just like as how there will always be those trying to show single parent families are bad, single parent families are good, etc.

But I would like to try and take the focus, personally, away from the eggheads and the civil libertarians amongst us and take the time to listen to the women involved who admit, more often than not, in fact almost all the time that they were manipulated and hurt by older men.

There's a reason for laws and protections - they are necessary.

 

RE: But, if someone tries to make a point on the opposing side (even for the sake of argument) you and some of your other buddies on here can't stand it, so you resort to name-calling.

Libertine, let me say simply this. I will accept that it is technically possible that there is a 12 year old out there who is mature, self-sufficient, adept and together enough to handle a relationship with a 40 year old man. There's also children who speak five languages at the age of six and are enrolled in differential calculus.

The evidence, be it anecdotal, weighs very heavily on the side of the current law. Celine Dion is married to her agent who had her the first time at 12. Does that make it right? No. Does that mean it worked out? Sure. Is that the norm? No. Was there something WEIRD about that situation, creepy and exploitative? Sure.

Now, there are people out there who I am sure do very fine behind the wheel after a few drinks. There are people who can shoot heroin for years and moderate it to the point that it does not impair their day to day lives. However, these people are about as rare as accurate bicep measurements. Those anomalies do NOT make a case for removing drunk driving laws or drug laws.

Of course laws mean that some people or some circumstances are unfairly limited. But I mean, look at it this way - if you love the girl and are compatible with her you can wait that few years, no? Sex between two people should be about "I like/love this person" not "oooooo, fresh meat". That is more properly defined as a fetish, and I'm sorry, objectifying children is totally against my principles.

Not only do I not want them involved with adult men, I don't want little girls told they need to start wearing makeup at 5, suggestive T-shirts at 8, thongs at 6, hooker boots at 12. For better or for worse we take a full eighteen years to grow a child. Children in our world have a childhood and an adolescence. Look at someone truly screwed up like Michael Jackson to see the effects of a robbed childhood.

 

Again, this is a mere assumption made that Leonard or anyone with the opposite viewpoint is a kiddie diddler. I find that to be the argument of one with a lack of argument.
Granted, you have made a rebuttal that wasn't all emotional blabber, but the majority has been based on a reaction, not any type of argument.

I have yet to see anything Leonard has said that could be taken to hurt people unless they are seeking victimization.

Disgust at what? His opinion which in no way was threatening or vile. He merely posted some statistics and a few opinions. It may have been the assumptions in your head that you were disgusted at and not the posts themselves. Your perception of them.

Agree and disagree. Laws which protect people from rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. are necessary. Laws which try to gauge around areas the politicians who make them are ignorant of, are not. I'd think a scientist, medical doctor or psychologist would know much more than a politician, but seldom are their views taken into consideration--just look at the drug war, for example.

 

Indeed, it is all about the situation. That's what I've been saying. The most reasonable thing to do is to use the Case By Case method, ensuring everyone's right based on reason, maturity level, intention, etc.

There ARE several cases for removing the current FAILING drug laws. Especially on marijuana, LSD, etc. those which are much less socially catastrophic as alcohol. But, "oh it's part of our culture". Yeah? Well, we are a multi-cultural society and thus, peyote (Indian), marijuana and psilocybin (Mexican), etc. should be adapted as well. And that's not the whole argument.

Well, what are children? Subjects? Ideas? Of course they are objects just as you and I. We are objective beings. However, our ethics are situational and so should our laws become.

 

RE: Granted, you have made a rebuttal that wasn't all emotional blabber, but the majority has been based on a reaction, not any type of argument.

Indeed. But then again I see a lot of people arguing for your position who use a lot of emotional reasoning as well. There's a LOT of noise in the signal here, and that's unavoidable.

RE: I have yet to see anything Leonard has said that could be taken to hurt people unless they are seeking victimization.

Leonard has, in various threads, argued that having sex with an eight year old is no longer pedophilia, asked who likes to pee on his partner, etc. I'm starting to wonder if this isn't R. Kelly. If you can't see why that would not provoke some ad hominem... and yeah, I'm sorry even you have said whoa wait up a sec there Tex 8-14 is too young if I recall. Whether or not he calls for it the stuff he dredges up supports that position, an unpopular one with few takers.

RE: Disgust at what? His opinion which in no way was threatening or vile.

His opinion is in favor of something which repulses many - and some here because they have been victimised in that way.

RE: Agree and disagree. Laws which protect people from rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc. are necessary.

Well, wait! Sometimes murder is justified. The peoples of Papua New Guinea have a tradition of headhunting.... etc. sorry but that's pretty much akin to what Leonard is suggesting.

RE: I'd think a scientist, medical doctor or psychologist would know much more than a politician, but seldom are their views taken into consideration--just look at the drug war, for example.

I'd say that current law is based on an objective evaluation of both sides. Politicians back in the day that those laws were crafted acted out of concern for children.

 

Granted.

I was referring to the few threads I've seen. I will check the others out as well. However, "peeing on a partner" can only hurt someone seeking victimization. And there is a lot of volunteers for victimization on these threads.

As I have said, I haven't read all of his threads, but from those I have read, I have seen nothing but a clear, if controversial, argument.

I am highly skeptical that the politicians and scientists collaborated an objective evaluation. I'd like to see that once! I sometimes think politicians are more enemies of science than religious zealots. And since when does a politician have any fucking concern other than their wallets and constant hunger for power? And there's a lot of evidence behind this...*lol*

 

So is baby-fucking going to start being acceptable nowadays too?

I stated what I had to say about the situation because I lived in the situation. And all I called you was ignorant, and if thats name calling to you, well then I'm sorry.

But you dont know what it does to the child, cause you are not them. How can you say what it effects them or how they percieve things, when again you are not in the situation you are not them.
I guess this subject is something that people wont see eye to eye on...
You have people who have been in the situation post in this thread and tell you how it damaged them in some way, yet people seem to ignore that and assume nothing is wrong with it. But there is something majorly wrong with it.
I never thought I would ever hear from people that it is okay for young children to have sex with grown adults.
Do you have kids Libertine? What if you had a son that was 13 and I had sex with him, what would your reaction be? Or if you had a daughter who was 14 and I was a man who was 27 and took her virginity by manipulting her.

and i am not talking about 16 having sex with 18 or 17 having sex with 19..and such like that.

I just think you cant act as though you know how it affects someone, when you clearly do not cause you again are not in the situation.
Here are people clearly stating how it did, and you choose to ignore and put your blinders on and say it was something wrong with us or that we were in the wrong.

I didnt realize that having intercourse with children was widely acceptable, guess you learn something new everyday.

 

Come off the emotional trip, and try to present a real argument. You are doing nothing more than trying to provoke a strictly emotion-based reaction.

No one has ok'ed child fucking.

WHERE on this thread has ANYONE condoned that?

When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Even your screen name SCREAMS "I'm a victim!"

 

I dont think you know how to read.

I do present an argument, how come I am not aloud to post my thoughts? Why is that? Please explain to me how come I am not aloud to say anything and you are aloud to post the crap that you do?
I didnt say anyone condoned that did I, I asked a question and stated my thoughts, you certainly do get majorly angry when someone says something not agreeing with you.
And dont tell me what I can and can not post, I can post whatever the hell I want to post. If you dont like then so what. And so I will continue to post my thoughts here if I like, now even more cause I know you had such a panic attack about it.

 

No one has stopped you. Certainly not I.

I haven't been angry at all on this thread. More assuming.

Never told you what to post and what not to post. Calm down.

Continue on, but all I asked for was a legitimate argument for your case other than emotionalism. But, of course, you don't HAVE to...

No one is forcing you. No one is stopping you.

You are choosing to be victimized by me.

 

If that wasnt an assumption, then I dont know what is.

To quote you earlier oh genious one

Maybe you should start taking your own adive.
My screen name has nothing to do with anything, its Nils from Bruce Springsteins album name and named myself that album cause the album was such a joke, again you are assuming like you said I was.

So you can go on and on if you would like about me assuming and all that crap, but you made a huge assumption and really contradicted yourself.

You assume the most, assume that stuff about emotional crap that you spouted off and so forth. I really dont think you read your posts when you hit submit.

 

you say you want "proof" hesa child molester, but odviosly he's not going to post that, hes posting scientifiv evedence trying to justify his perversion, every thread hes posted wether its about children masterbating or pissing on girls indicateds a deeply disturbed & prtverted creep, the fact that he even tries justifying a 7 year old as a sexualy mature person indicates that he has sexual thoughts about children, every one of his threads from a psychological standpoint indicates not only someone who fantasizes about kids, but most likely has or will act upon those fantasies, & the worse part ids he tries backing it up with scientific facts (i would imagine 1/2 the data came right off the nambla (or whatever its called) website)

 

Unfortunately, I made a joke at the end, ok. However, not one time has your argument been anything BUT emotion.

You have every right to tell your story. I told mine. But, you generalized it when it is situational.

No one has stopped you from giving a legitimate argument.

 

Eagle, that post is FULL of opinion and no facts.

The question is: IS LEONARD CORRECT IN HIS FACTS OR NOT? That's a simple question.

No one has dared tackle this. Why not?