• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

Eveleivibe said:
Balanced argument? When it comes to that group of people there's no balance.

I'm a parent. They are SCUM. BAD. EVIL. INHUMAN.
Click to expand...

Some people would say the same thing about opiate addicts. Shambles has already explained the "they're still people" point far more elegantly than I ever could.
 
Ismene said:
I am still wondering if you fancied a girl when you were 14 and still occasionally find the thought of her sexy when you are 35, does that make you a paedo? Even tho you don't find 14 year old girls of today sexy, at least not in the Cyril Smith sense.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is no. You are dealing with a time-specific memory. As you say, you don't find 14 year olds of today sexy. You are dealing with the memory of a 14 year old when you were 14.
 
True but if you are now in your 40s and still finding it sexy, does that add a little Cyril-ness to it?
 
^ can you be 'made' anything by something you merely think? i don't know, but it seems like a dodgy road anyway...

@evey - "love your enemy" "do unto others as you would have them do to you" (as well as "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind") are some more wise words we could all benefit from imo
 
He wasn't comparing them to opiate addicts he was pointing out that very similar things are said about opiate addicts ("string 'em up, hanging's too good for 'em, once a junky always a junky, scum" and so on). It's the same attitude only aimed at something we would all find no great issue with and would want that person to receive treatment for their issues if/when they need it and to be punished for their crimes if indeed they did commit crimes (I know that doesn't apply in your situation but it certainly did in mine and in the case of probably the majority of opiate addicts). I would suggest a similar approach would be wise for sex offenders too. Not for one moment comparing the two in any other ways but I believe that certain types of sex offender are mentally ill and need treatment as well as to be punished for what they've done. The only other option really is to either lock up for life or to execute if society doesn't want such people to be in and out of prison racking up further victims each time because they've never received any appropriate treatment. It seems a better option to me to try to deal with the problem rather than focus completely on punishment and skip the rehabilitation as it tends to be seen as a soft option by many (although I've no idea why and doubt they have much of an idea either really).
 
Ismene said:
I am still wondering if you fancied a girl when you were 14 and still occasionally find the thought of her sexy when you are 35, does that make you a paedo? Even tho you don't find 14 year old girls of today sexy, at least not in the Cyril Smith sense.
Click to expand...

A very interesting question and since I started the relationship with Mrs A when we were both 15 one I have considered, maybe more so since we also have a daughter.

I wouldnt seriously consider having any kind of sexual relationship with a girl any where close to that age now, for me it feels inherently wrong to view young women that way now. I think older men should show a bit of respect and integrity in such matters, they are by no means black and white issues but it goes with such territory that being sure about the line between consent and manipulation be properly considered IMHO.

There is a universe of differencing between liking the idea of a 'sexy' school girl and actively seeking one out, last time I checked there still arent any 'real' thought police :sus:
 
Is peadophilia a type of sexuality as in like gay men fancy men & straight men fancy women and peadophiles only fancy children?
If that is the case then no therapy would change someones sexuality.
You can't turn a homosexual straight and vice versa.
 
maxalfie said:
Is peadophilia a type of sexuality as in like gay men fancy men & straight men fancy women and peadophiles only fancy children?
If that is the case then no therapy would change someones sexuality.
You can't turn a homosexual straight and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Its a good question Max. And one a paedophile might well say yes too, lots of them are in denial that they are doing anything 'wrong' at all. But I don't see it quite like that. There is a power dynamic going on that is unhealthy. A 9 year old cannot give consent. That a paedophile cannot or will not recognize this is what makes them different and why it isn't simply 'a sexuality'. Anymore than being a rapist would be considered so.

However, for sure, it is such an entrenched view in some paedophiles that for them, I agree, no amount of therapy will change their behaviour. But not all paedophiles are made from the same brush stroke. The figures suggest there is a body of them for whom therapy can work.

"Those who work with them don't talk about cures, they talk about containing and controlling their behaviour, teaching them that it's wrong and helping them to avoid triggers that might cause them to regress."
Click to expand...
 
"Is paedophilia a type of sexuality" I don't think so - i wouldn't want to dignify something pathological and liken it to a natural condition like sexual orientation. You could maybe argue there's a link to sexuality (as in it's sexuality gone wrong or something).

It's also a difficult analogy considering how we used to consider homosexuality criminally in a similar way to how we now view paedophilia and couldn't imagine the corrollary happening in the future. Even without trying to crowbar paedophilia into it (which i don't think fits) i think sexuality as a whole is too vague and hard to define to be much use in a legal context (except as circumstantial evidence maybe)
 
I would suggest it's worth a try at least. I'm sure it wouldn't work in all cases - maybe not even in very many cases (I really have no idea and doubt there have been extensive studies to find out) - but has to be better than not even offering treatment. Given the vast majority of offenders will be released sooner or later it only seems like common sense to try to do as much as possible to avoid further offending.

Allein said:
... last time I checked there still arent any 'real' thought police :sus:
Click to expand...

Check back in a few years and I bet there will be :|
 
The attraction for a paedophile is in having power. It's not an intellectual or cultural exchange. Sex is simply the medium they are working through to make up for other inadequacies or deficiencies in their lives, be they emotional inadequacies or some other type. It's about imposing dominance, through sexuality. Because the power is so absolute in a paedophilic relationship, such a complete answer to their conundrum, it makes their position entrenched and so they are unwilling to give it up.
 
Vurtual said:
"Is paedophilia a type of sexuality" I don't think so - i wouldn't want to dignify something pathological and liken it to a natural condition like sexual orientation. You could maybe argue there's a link to sexuality (as in it's sexuality gone wrong or something).
Click to expand...

Hang on. The act of sexually abusing a child is wrong, absolutely, but who are you to say that paedophilia itself (as in the purest definition of the word) is inherently 'wrong' if the paedophile doesn't indulge in sexual acts with children or view child porn? Just thinks kids are really sexy?

It seems utterly abhorrent to you or I, yes, but so do hundreds of paraphilias I'd wager. Furthermore, I'd suggest that a good percentage of male posters on this forum have at one time or another become aroused at some fantasy rape scenario, yet not very many would ever act upon it, and would shudder at the very thought.

If you're defining 'paedophile' as practising paedophile, then yes, I agree. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect such moralising from you based on your other posts. You disappoint me. :)
 
Sammy G said:
Hang on. ... You disappoint me. :)
Click to expand...

i thought i said i didn't want to regard thought as paedophilia (or anything) further up... But when it's acted upon i'd call it paedophilia and i'd say it's pathological. i really didn't think i was moralising - maybe i need to check my internet tone :)

i was also maybe reacting a bit robustly because there are some worrying people who try to link paedophilia and homosexuality in general on those dodgy 'all politicians are paedos' sites
 
I responded directly to that post, so forgive any oversights. I just get a little carried away with challenging the widely-accepted notion that paedophilia (passive) is a bona fide psychological problem rather than maybe an extremely transgressive, yet wholly natural, area of human sexuality. One which unavoidably involves a certain power dynamic which makes it abusive by default, in part as a result of biology and in part through social structures.

I'm not saying I'm in either camp; just practising healthy agnosticism. :)
 
Vurtual said:
@evey - "love your enemy" "do unto others as you would have them do to you" (as well as "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind") are some more wise words we could all benefit from imo
Click to expand...

Proper justice is something society could benefit from imo
 
Eveleivibe said:
Balanced argument? When it comes to that group of people there's no balance.

I'm a parent. They are SCUM. BAD. EVIL. INHUMAN.

If anyone hurt my child they wouldn't be doing time because they'd no longer be living.

Evey
Click to expand...

curious_24 said:
Some people would say the same thing about opiate addicts. Shambles has already explained the "they're still people" point far more elegantly than I ever could.
Click to expand...


Erm, being an opiate addict is nothing like being a child molester. Did I even read that right? are you really comparing the two?

Shambles said:
Everybody is somebody's child - that includes sex offenders. I'm not for one moment suggesting they should... I don't even know - they are imprisoned the same as any other criminal who hurts people is imprisoned. I really don't understand the "string 'em up" mentality. Well, I suppose I kinda do cos they are obviously hideous crimes (at least the instances I suspect you are thinking of - touching a 15yo boob is not on but it's hardly Ian Watkins territory) but I do wonder if people now use tabloid hysteria about "paedos" to simply vent anger in general - scapegoat for everything that is perceived to be wrong with modern society - rather than treating them as what they are which is as people who have done truly terrible things in many cases but who are still people. I agree with the above quote.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I feel we all have an awareness of what is right in our heart and what we should never do. Those who choose to cross that line, regardless, and don't employ the effort to shun this dark side of human nature have very wicked hearts. No sympathy for those people at all. I'm not a believer in capital punishment, but they should be locked up until they're lonely death.

Shambles said:
That doesn't mean such offenders should be treated lightly but it does mean they should be treated humanely. The level of vitriol and the type of language often used by people who go the "hanging's too good for 'em" way is often deeply disturbing in itself. It's all a bit eye for an eye for me. I prefer the don't sink to their level approach. Revenge is not the appropriate response for a society (albeit an understandable initial reaction from people directly affected, their friends and family and so forth).
Click to expand...

I agree with this, well said
 
Last edited:
In somewhat related news, I've seen a few news reports getting their knickers in a twist over paedophiliac literature which is (or was - think they banned it since but not sure) popular in eBook formats sold through Amazon I think it was - the type of book that anybody can write and publish as an eBook and get royalties for sales through certain websites. I remember having quite mixed opinions on that one. On the one hand there are certainly some seriously fukked up examples which do make you wonder about the author and those who pay for it, but on the other hand it is but a book and comes under free speech. The argument presented was obviously that such easy access to such material could encourage somebody to act on their fantasies which I can see as being a legitimate concern to an extent. On t'other hand it is free speech and there are a number of historical examples (Marquis de Sade goes there (and indeed just about everywhere else even remotely conceivable - certainly wasn't short on imagination that fella) as I recall and presumably plenty others have) that are perfectly legal to buy or possess so just because there may be more of it available doesn't mean it wasn't already available if people wished to seek it out.

Given we're discussing thought rather than deed at the moment what are thoughts on literary material of such nature?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top