Ask A Pedophile thread

Check quote by Herbert Wagemaker in my last post...

 

the point of this thread is to seek help and this guy had the balls to come into " the loving hippie forum "and seek help all he is getting is judgements and indirect threats.Pedophilia is a mental disorder, not a sexual orientation or lifestyle choice. Specifically, it is a Paraphilia. The Paraphilias are characterized by recurrent, intense, sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations. Other examples of Paraphilias are Exhibitionism, Fetishism, Sexual Masochism, and Sexual Sadism.he has not acted on his mental incapacities he is seeking help.if someone had other mental problems such as adhd or was retarded would you want to castrate them??????????it's hard to tell in this forum...he cannot control his feelings that is why he seeking help....unfortunatley he hasn't gotten any in this forum...

 

Too true. I felt like I was on his side, but just got up in my own little ego games & arguements...

I know the paedophiles who have posted here have claimed to never have touched a child or looked at child porn, but I thought these two links might be found useful anyways:
http://www.childlustrecovery.org/index.html .
http://www.truthminers.com/truth/help_for_porn_addicts.htm .

 

What's the difference? They're ALL scumbags.

 

Now, you see, I can agree with you there. All child molestors are scumbags.

 

Well Ive got to say this "Not a Monster " monster is probably the most sinister poster Ive ever read.
Notice how hejust loves the attention , and doesnt in any way say what he thinks is and isnt acceptable.
Then he brings up some Victorian scholars crap to try and justify himself.
As for the "child molesters arent paedephiles" lines , well words fail me...

Paedephiles are a disease and for them to say a 5 year old / 10 year old or 14 year old is somehow having his "rights denied" by making it illegal for Mr "Not a Monster" to rupture his arse , is absolutely sick and warped.

What do u see as the basics for your relationships with children then?
A bag of sweets equals a blowjob from a 5 year old?

So come on , were waiting for your answers.Or do u just want to get off on all the outrage that youve stirred up?

 

BTW, there was another rant I was meaning to get off my shoulders about a comment posted earlier on this thread. Some of it is just my personal opinion:

“AncientHippie” and “Merry Mab” mentioned something about pedophileo-phobia, in other words, the irrational and exagerated fear of thoughtcrime, being a natural “instinct” that is meant “to destroy to the best of our ability those that would harm our children” (If you're new/ignorant, or still hung up on the superstition all pedos are bound to screw your kids, read my preceding posts again).


Sorry to rain on your little parade, but this phobia (defined as “an exagerated or irrational fear; an intense, uneralistic fear[…]) is nothing more than a recent social construct.

Just about 500 years ago almost every one of you would have been more willing than I would to marry off your twelve-year old daughters (some even younger) to much older ADULT men. In fact, we don’t even have to go that far back, less than a hundred years ago, and even today in some third world countries, children are married off at ages as young as nine or ten.

While I am NOT condoning such early marriages, my point is that countless societies outside the modern-day western world were not only void of this so-called “instinct” to kill all who would even think of their child in a non-platonic way, but they even encouraged the very action. My question is, where was this paranoid “natural instinct” then!? It's not because of your genes that you suffer of this blindsighted hysteria towards 'Crimethink'. If you had grown up in rural India 200 years ago, or in Europe during the Middle Ages, you would have laughed at this very discussion. Obviously the mentality of the Middle Ages was backwards, but it proves that the reasons for your hatred for Crimethink are far from biological. Wanting to protect your child from harm and wanting to kill someone for experiencing arousal from thought are lightyears apart, no matter how much your brainwashed minds would like to think it is so.



Do you want to know the root of those “instincts”? Despite what you believe, it’s not ingrained in something as complex as your DNA, but something nonetheless very influential to your behavior and way of thinking. This is the media, as well as collective social programming. You have been fed your convictions -- and gobbled them up like good little hamsters your entire lives from the same source that has been enforcing a similar hysteria over terrorism and muslims.

Do you think it is just a coincidence that so many in the west began violently attacking muslims, on the charge that their thoughts might lead them to acts of violence after 9/11? Is it not the media that bombards us with stories of the threat of terrorism? Is it not the media that feeds you with exagerated tales of the threats of chatroom predators, satanic ritual abuse, and leering pedophiles in dark corners?

While child abduction and sexual abuse are serious problems, your child is more likely to die in a car accident than to be abducted. And if he/she is indeed molested, it will probably be someone from the immediate family (an uncle, father, or grandfather), and if that happens, chances are the molester will be a situational/surrogate type offender rather than a pedophile who is trully attracted to your child (as I said before, power is the most common motive for sexual assault. Rape is rarely motivated by sexual attraction. Any psychologist will tell you this).



Countless children are beaten half to death by their own parents everyday, but are we as enthusiastic about torturing and maiming those abusers as we are about child molesters, who are referred to with the (usually) false term “paedophiles”? Countless children are subjected to cruel slavery by sweatshops run by prominent western companies, or forced to take part in barbaric violence as child soldiers. When these subjects are brought up, the usual reactions are “Oh, how terrible,” or “Those poor children,” or at worst “How could anyone do that to a child? They should be locked up for the rest of their lives” (pretty sober compared to what has been said here).



Why is this? Do you people think someone who was put into a wheelchair (or killed) by his own father somehow has it better than someone who was groped as a child? Does a former child soldier somehow suffer less psychological trauma than a rape victim? Why is it that the sexual, rather than the physical or psychological abusers get more media attention and are thereby surrounded by more hysteria and phobia?

Sex is what sells the movies, and it’s also what sells stories, along with violence. Sex is an attention-grabber. Fear is a way to control large masses of people. People will do and think the stupidest things when they’re afraid, they’ll accept the biggest lies and subject themselve to untold amounts of oppression if it gives them a warm sense of security and protection. Fear turnes people into sheep, and this is especially true when it comes to fear for ones children.

A good mixture of sex-scandals and fear is perfect for grabbing attention and turning people into mindless, irrational cattle. Monitering the public’s internet activity and trying to obtain a record of all Google searches “to catch internet predators, of course.” The Ermächtigungsgesetz and the Patriot Act, “for terrorists.” Thoughts of legalizing torture “just to stop the terrorists…or pedophiles”.

Suppose we were to make it legal to torture a person slowly to death who was even suspected of having sexual thoughts for children (as some have advocated). What’s to stop anyone from rounding up a group of people who were politically…”unpopular” or unliked for other reasons? (how are you going to prove thoughts, afterall) They would only need to find a reason to suggest that he/she is [gasp!] a pedophile (i.e he/she walks past a school on his way to work; he/she is a teacher; he/she drew a picture that might come close to resembling a child in an erotic pose). The vast majority of sheep would cheer on vehemently. Even in this forum, we see people demanding the abolition of their own freedoms.

Good boy. You're starting to show signs of asking questions. That's at least a small hint of critical thinking.
It's not just beyond you, it's beyond me too, and it's beyond the whole psychiatric community. No one knows the exact causes of pedophilia or ephebophilia. Genes are one explaination, but not the only, and not the official explaination.

I see you're still ignorant enough to think people actually decide who their attracted to. Are you really so narrow-minded that you assume we take some kind of criteria and make a CHOICE to be attracted to a particular person!?

The extents of human stupidity are limitless. If paraphilias, or even homosexuality, were things people could decide to have or not to have then they wouldn't exist anymore.
Paedophiles are THE most hated group on the planet, there is almost NO advantage to having this. Compared to paedophiles, even Hitler is considered an angel or a possible Nobel Peace Prize nominee by the general public. Hitler killed over 6,000,000 people in the Holocaust, and started a war that killed over 60,000,000 -- but at least he wasn't attracted to children. Anyone who thinks pedophiles make an actual decision to have their particular attraction is a complete idiot. I guess stupid people like you just can't be reasoned with...since you have no capacity for reasoning.

BTW, you still haven't managed to come up any kind of logic to support that childish statement of yours (childish...HAha...no pun intended LOL) This what I said about you above.

 

BTW, I've been referring to paedophilia as "thoughtcrime" or "people's thoughts and feelings". However, that term isn't quite accurate, since attraction technically isn't even so much as a thought process. It's only sensations and emotions. People don't consciously think in order to feel attraction anymore than they consciously think about getting hungry, thirsty or sleepy.

 

Enyu / "NOt a Monster" and all your other ids , you really look a despicable and sinister character.

Clearly only here to network with other twisted , dsyfunctional perverts with the objective of ruining children's lives.

I notice the way you started off , ambiguous , vague in your comments , but its quite clear what you are.
A highly maladjusted , twisted , calculating , power-crazed weirdo.

Do you actually have ANY limits to what you think is acceptable?
Or do you think all child abusers are a "persecuted minority"?

 

I know well the root of my "instincts". There was a particular teen-aged girl on our block who baby-sat for the neighborhood. When it was time for bed, my brother was put down, but I was allowed to stay up, and the baby-sitter would teach me "what boyfriends and girlfriends did together". I was no older than four.

There was another babysitter, but I was seven, in a new neighborhood, and the babysitter was a teen-aged boy. He played "Snow White" with us. I was Snow White, and he was the Prince who would wake me with a kiss--a very adult, open-mouthed kiss. Later at bed time, he tried to talk me into allowing him to kiss me between my open legs, telling me it was the only way I'd be able to have babies when I was older. I didn't care. I wouldn't let him.

I didn't and still don't have the education to classify these two disturbed people, but I know this much: I do NOT have a fear of pedophiles that is exaggerated, irrational, intense or unrealistic. The fear I have is based on experience.

Enyu, if you were to come to me and tell me you were attracted to children, I would never allow you to be introduced to mine. Nothing could convince me to take the risk.

 

being a person with a family member who IS a paedophile, I am very sickened that this is a thread. And if you look at the "monsters" age, what kind of younger kids is he looking at??? 8 yr olds? is not a question of wrongness. It doesnt NEED to be questioned.

 

ALSO, if "monster" is still reading this thread, you dont know how serious paedophilea effects people. There is no stereo-type, theres FACTS.

 

I sympathise with Notamonster.

Notamonster said he was a pedophile. People confused this word with the media version of the word "pedophile" which is a rapist who abuses children. But he explained he is not that; he is a pedophile by the technical definition of the word, which means someone attracted to prepubescent children (or possibly even pubescent children by some definitions). This is neither a conscious deliberate choice, a crime, or immoral.

Sexual attraction itself cannot be immoral as it is just feelings. People can't help what they feel, only their behaviour. And you can't tell them what to find attractive. And they can't help it.

The 'pedophile' portrayed in the media is a child abuser, and, like the child killer, has little or no regard for the wellbeing of the child. These people are rapists. Selfish, careless people who have no consideration for their victims, only lust. Being a pedophile doesn't automatically make someone selfish and careless. Just because a man can't sleep with girls the age he wants doesn't automatically make him cross the line and become a rapist. That's not to say all pedophiles are innocent, but you can't label them all as bad people.

Imagine you were sexually attracted to prepubescent children… would that make you want to throw away your morals and start raping and hurting children? I don't think so, so why would a pedophile do that? As it has been said on this thread, pedophiles typically have a great love of children (hence the name "pedo-phile"). Hurting what you love seems an odd thing to do.

Would being passionate about animals make someone a rapist? There are people who sexually abuse animals, but I would imagine the majority of people who were genuinely attracted to animals would be animal lovers and they would not want to upset their pets by doing that to them, and would restrain their attraction to a form of admiration, rather than anything physical. No different with pedophiles, I would think.

I have a sympathy for anyone who is hated solely for what they find attractive, whether it's children, animals, corpses, or however weird it is. They can't help that, and I'm sure no one would ever choose to be that way. Our efforts should be put into the protection of children and not into hating people for their thoughts, which, if anything, is muddying our view of the real threat to children. (Although I also have sympathy for the actual rapists and murderers, too — but that's just me. I don't think hating people does any good for anyone.)

If someone found my children attractive, that attraction alone wouldn't hurt them. Only an immoral, abusive person would take advantage of them. Simple as that.

The media really need to act more responsibly and stop using phrases like "convicted pedophile", which reinforce the false notion that pedophilia is immoral or criminal.

 

NotAMonster and Enyu haven't come seeking help. They have come to convince us that their pedophilia is something we shouldn't fear.

I'm still not convinced.

 

Me either and I never will be. If given the chance they WOULD and WILL abuse the children. They can try to rationalize it any way they want but they're still scumbags of the highest form IMHO.

 

NO, obviously not. Do you have something that could be snipped off. It was a joke, but i guess you missed it.

 

What the Monster tries to use is a warped type of trickery on people.
Of course that can work very well on the 4 year olds he loves , but it doesnt work quite as well on the adults.
Maybe thats why he doesnt fancy them.

Try and have an argument with someone about whether the sky is blue.
Its a bit like an argument with a pervert.

The point is that children are very easily manipulated , very easily scared and very easy to damage.Kids who are forced to play professional tennis by their parents say "yes I want to play" but they may well be afraid to say " I hate it but u want me to love it, and I havent got any friends because of it".But the Monster tries tojustify something infinitely more damaging than hitting a tennis ball.

Early experiences dictate what someones sexuality will be like many decades later.
If they learn in a sinister , overbearing , quietly intimidating environment thats what theyll very possibly be involved in / interested in later on.Its the Stockholm Syndrome of handling trauma to try and "justify" it.

A 16 yr old and a 15 year old is fairly innocuous.
2 13 year olds together isnt a crime in England .But this weirdo is implying / say a 50 year old male and a 9 year old girl....
I mean for fucks sake why isnt he locked up?

From what I see , if the age of consent was reduced to say 14 ( which in our modern complex society is VERY much a child) , the fun would go out of it for him , and hed
get off on arguing that he should be able to screw 4 year olds.

 

The level of ignorance of pedophilia demonstrated on this thread is simply staggering.

 

Ignorance?How do u mean?

Whats ignorant is someone deliberately being vague and implying that "anything goes" because a 5 year old can stand up for him/ herself and consent to being fiddled with by a 20 or 50 year old.
except its infinitely worse than ignorance.

 

Ressotaspiks, no-one in this thread has aid that they "should be able to screw 4 year olds." No-one has argued they should be able to have sex with children. HAve you even read the previous page?

Try and have an arguement about whether the grass is green.
It's a bit like an arguement with a judgemental, close-minded idiot.

You're arguing things are wrong that no-one here has said is right, in fact that we've all agreed are wrong already, then stepping aback and thinking, "There...that'll show them".