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

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

I'd totally forgot about this. There was a well known stoat the baw teacher at my school. He had been shagging a girl in his class then when she left school they got married. She must have been 16/17 and he was about 50 odds. This happened when I was just starting high school. He was still a teacher there (and still married I assume) when I left school. I think he managed to get away with it because they never got properly caught while she was still at the school.

Used to sit in his class shouting "MR CARR! STOOOOOOOAT THE BAW!"
 
Exactly, MDB. The lad is a victim too - but just because he's a lad they class him as a hero. He may appear "lucky" at the time but may have a lot of emotional turmoil later on as a consequence. EastEnders illustrated this nicely with the "Whitney-Tony" story line , where she was convinced that he loved her, even defended him at first. But look at what she went through after, her lack of trust, loss of childhood to an extend.

Ok EastEnders is just a soap opera, but nicely illustrates this - only that the roles are reserved.

To change the subject slightly, it also illustrates that society is not yet there with "gender equalities," in terms of reactions towards specific situations, our thoughts towards certain situations, etc, etc. whether we will ever be there is for another discussion. However, it is good that people are thinking about this in terms of the differents gender roles when it comes paedophilia.

I would love to hear people's argument as to why a lad would be "lucky / hero" for engaging in sexual acts with a female over the age of consent - but this is not the way things are seen if gender roles were reserved. If your views have changed / or differ slightly - lets read them - and discuss it.

Evey

Evey
 
I think it's because at that age, at least from a male point of view, boys are charging about with a stauner half the day trying to pump something/anything. Absolutely choking, trying like fuck and usually failing miserably to get some girl to let them pump her.

Boys are out there constantly trying to fuck something, girls are out there trying not to get fucked by something :)
 
parttime crackhead said:
....Boys are out there constantly trying to fuck something, girls are out there trying not to get fucked by something :)
Click to expand...

Largely that's true, but young women and girls are often very dominant in their sexual activites these days it seems to me (if not actually all the way through the act itself...)
 
I agree, though from memory, when i was that age, it seemed it was more likely for a girl to 'willingly' lose their virginity to a 'cool' older bloke (and sometimes getting similar kudos to boys) than for the reverse to happen, not for want of it happening for the boys (probably due to girls maturing socially faster than boys)
 
Interesting. I suppose women were viewed as "innocent, delicate," so to speak whereas men are seen as strong in some ways. I think that I'm going about this wrong but it is fascinating how two exactly situations can be perceived differently because gendeer roles are reversed. It's interesting to read people's reasoning too.

So if it's the case that a man is desparste to 'undergo sexual acts' but a girl may not be - does it make it right?

To illustrate with an example of an alcoholic, who is told that if he drinks one more drink, it may kill him. We know that every cell in his body is screaming out for alcohol, he is begging for it, PLEADING with you, "please give me a drink!" Does that mean because he is desparate for a drink you should give him one, knowing it would kill him?

My point is that a man may have "a hard on," n need sex / sexual release or whatever but does it make it right that a female, over the age of consent, in a position of responsibility, should honour the boys wishes? Ok that man won't die like the alcoholic but there are still consequences for him if these wishes were met.

Sometimes what a person wants and what a person needs are completely different.

Evey
 
I had quite a lengthy discussion with a friend about this subject a few days ago and came to a few conclusions about certain things where societies view as a whole is perhaps a little bit off and slight changes in outlook could even reduce rates of offending.

The term paedophile is used as a blanket term for anyone interested in or engages in sexual acts with underage people. I think this term actually comprises of 2 distinct groups of people.

The first group are people who have an active sexual interest in children/young underage adolescents, I don't believe these people are necessarily evil or wicked individuals. They have no choice in their preferences and are born that way, exactly the same as heterosexual people are interested in members of the opposite sex and homosexuals are interested in members of the same sex. The threat of prison or punishment is not going to stop these people having those kind of feelings, and the intense demonisation probably leads them to suffer in silence with no outlet for the feelings they possess.

That's not to say that people that have commit paedophilic acts should go unpunished, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'm not trying to make excuses for this group but I feel with the subject being more approachable, perhaps being more understanding of people willing to admit they have paedophilic tendencies and offering proper support & counselling, offending rates from this group could probably be cut quite significantly by teaching them methods of controlling their feelings and not acting out on them.

The second group are people who aren't necessarily paedophiles in the classic sense, they don't harbour classic attraction to children. This is the group that are inherently evil or wicked individuals (think Ian Watkins). They are probably beyond any kind of help, the pleasure they derive from it is more because it is the ultimate taboo, they enjoy dominating people, making people feel worthless, spreading terror, cunts basically. This is probably caused by a deep lying personality disorder and as such they are more than likely beyond rehabilitation. People from this group should probably never be released from prison as they are ultimately way too dangerous and will almost certainly offend again.
 
ponch said:
...I don't believe these people are necessarily evil or wicked individuals. They have no choice in their preferences and are born that way, exactly the same as heterosexual people ...
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but i don't buy this argument particularly - i believe (on no particular grounds) that paedophilia is at least as much environment/nurture as nature (i'd think mostly environment personally) - that's not to say it's anymore amenable to being changed later. To a certain degree i also think this way about 'gender' and 'sexuality' actually (though there seems to be more definite genetic components in the case of gender). In general, the genetic determinist models of human behaviour have mostly become finessed over time to some irreducible mixture of genes and environoment, with very few behaviours directly attributable only to a genetic cause (and those genetic attributions still contested) - even though they're are still discussed deterministically in the wider culture.

To put it another way, maybe some people who have the supposed 'neural wiring' that gives a higher risk of paedophile behaviour wouldn't actually become paedophiles (this seems to be how other genetically linked behaviours pan out in the population)
 
Last edited:
Eveleivibe said:
Interesting. I suppose women were viewed as "innocent, delicate," so to speak whereas men are seen as strong in some ways. I think that I'm going about this wrong but it is fascinating how two exactly situations can be perceived differently because gendeer roles are reversed. It's interesting to read people's reasoning too.

So if it's the case that a man is desparste to 'undergo sexual acts' but a girl may not be - does it make it right?

To illustrate with an example of an alcoholic, who is told that if he drinks one more drink, it may kill him. We know that every cell in his body is screaming out for alcohol, he is begging for it, PLEADING with you, "please give me a drink!" Does that mean because he is desparate for a drink you should give him one, knowing it would kill him?

My point is that a man may have "a hard on," n need sex / sexual release or whatever but does it make it right that a female, over the age of consent, in a position of responsibility, should honour the boys wishes? Ok that man won't die like the alcoholic but there are still consequences for him if these wishes were met.

Sometimes what a person wants and what a person needs are completely different.

Evey
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't really believe the consequences are that bad. If a 14 year old boy gets his hole off a teacher, then gets a high-five off all his mates and a belter of a story to tell for decades then where's the harm? If however, he does it then gets the police, social workers etc all telling him he's been abused...


I'm looking at this purely from my point of view. I understand that it's not necessarily always as simple as that.
 
by more precise definition peadopophiles are exclusively interested in pre-pubescent children. There's another word, that rarely get used for people interested in teenage girls, some of whome may be underage. I cant remember what the word is and call me paranoid but i dont particularly want to start googling this subject in depth as it would leave a very dodgy looking trail.

I agree that a person can not help their sexual orientation, but they can choose whether to act on it or not. Maybe those older males interested in teenage girls have somehow stalled in their development, i have no idea what may cause a sick interest in pre-pubescent children as in general pre pubescent children dont have any sexual feelings ?
 
Raas_2012 said:
There is confusion in how the paedophile should be treated, I am not suggesting we become as malicious as they are and "repay" them through vengeance or capital punishment. Such an attitude is counter-productive.

Though I empathise with an acrimonious attitude towards a paedophile, for they're intent towards others. I am not suggesting brutality towards that person. The formation of their ill desires do not make them in any way exclusive to any other human being and they shouldn't be treated as such.
Click to expand...

Vurtual said:
But i think the comparison holds with any type of justice, not just capital punishment - justice should be the same dispassionate process for everybody or else it's not justice.

society agrees (largely) on sentences to reflect the seriousness of different crimes, but ulitmately, paedophiles are human beings just like the rest of us - however difficult that might be to swallow, imo it's better than the alternative of having 'sub-humans' or 'evil people' of any sort, because on past performance, that type of thinking can end up in extremis being so much more dangerous than paedophiles.
Click to expand...

Which is basically, everything I said but re-worded. You could have just said "I agree with you, Raas".

Alas, you are debating with the most intelligent person on the forum. If I was in your position, I'd be re-wording all my posts also ;)
 
it was an accidental/subconscious mispelling.

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19

Hebephilia is the primary or exclusive sexual interest in pubescent individuals
approximately 11–14 years old, and is one of several types of chronophilia ...

sourced from wiki. Nobody uses these words though so they might as well not even exist.
 
Cheers MDB - my brain had efficiently merged them into one easy-to-say lump sum :).

And Raas - i bow to your nominal position ;) - but i did say that we agreed there somewhere :) (the paragraph after you quoted i think) - we weren't arguing about that, just your characterisation of the comparison being made (i was just giving my opinionated (or onionated - i had a quiche earlier) version of the world on top of that as usual (and this as i said is similar to yours in some ways) - someone must be following what i mean surely? (i know i waffle (and use brackets (too (much))))
 
Last edited:
Eveleivibe said:
If you think that, for one moment, this lad is "lucky," you are very much mistaken. Paedophiles are very cunning, very manipulative, have a habit of getting you to think THEIR way; have a way of "making you think that they love you" that they are a really, sweet, charming person who will be with you forever, take care of you blah, blah. This boy will have a lot of emotional stuff to deal with for years to come, when he comes to terms that she probably NEVER loved him at all but was playing with him for her own sick fantasies. I actually feel very sorry for that boy; even if he's 14.

Best Wishes, I need to get to the pharmacy!
Evey :)
Click to expand...

Brilliant post, Evey.

All this "School-kids who get laid by their teachers are lucky" talk is absolute nonsense. Those experiences can really affect someone. Imagine if that boy has a lovely wife and family ahead of him, do you really think he wants the emotional baggage of a corrupt, careless teacher abusing her position on his mind for the rest of his life!?
 
ponch said:
I had quite a lengthy discussion with a friend about this subject a few days ago and came to a few conclusions about certain things where societies view as a whole is perhaps a little bit off and slight changes in outlook could even reduce rates of offending.

The term paedophile is used as a blanket term for anyone interested in or engages in sexual acts with underage people. I think this term actually comprises of 2 distinct groups of people.

The first group are people who have an active sexual interest in children/young underage adolescents, I don't believe these people are necessarily evil or wicked individuals. They have no choice in their preferences and are born that way, exactly the same as heterosexual people are interested in members of the opposite sex and homosexuals are interested in members of the same sex. The threat of prison or punishment is not going to stop these people having those kind of feelings, and the intense demonisation probably leads them to suffer in silence with no outlet for the feelings they possess.

That's not to say that people that have commit paedophilic acts should go unpunished, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'm not trying to make excuses for this group but I feel with the subject being more approachable, perhaps being more understanding of people willing to admit they have paedophilic tendencies and offering proper support & counselling, offending rates from this group could probably be cut quite significantly by teaching them methods of controlling their feelings and not acting out on them.

The second group are people who aren't necessarily paedophiles in the classic sense, they don't harbour classic attraction to children. This is the group that are inherently evil or wicked individuals (think Ian Watkins). They are probably beyond any kind of help, the pleasure they derive from it is more because it is the ultimate taboo, they enjoy dominating people, making people feel worthless, spreading terror, cunts basically. This is probably caused by a deep lying personality disorder and as such they are more than likely beyond rehabilitation. People from this group should probably never be released from prison as they are ultimately way too dangerous and will almost certainly offend again.
Click to expand...

Interesting post. I believe that they are all evil - but I do see where you are coming from and you do make some valid points.

Evey
 
I don't believe paedophiles who don't act on their urges are evil. I state this purely because I'm fairly sure I was born homosexual, I definitely never made the choice to lower the dating pool and get shit at school. I had 'crushes' on women in Primary School. So, I figured I have no choice being gay (I had this discussion with Mum at 16: 'how do you know you're gay if you've not slept with a man?' 'well how do you know you're straight if you haven't slept with a woman?'). So I believe people are born with certain sexual preferences. I believe the type of paedophile who acknowledges their preference and seeks help so as not to act on their actions is fairly admirable in that it's a fucking big thing to admit to someone and seek help for, if you get me.

The paedophiles that do act on it should be punished for it much like a murderer or rapist etc etc but also rehabilitated.

My only issue with my own view (ego baby) is that I don't believe in 'gay therapy' where they send you off and make you 'straight'. However I also don't believe in sexually abusing children and I feel far more strongly about that. Gays aren't harming anyone, but giving paedophiles therapy to help them stop acting on their urges is, in my mind, sound I guess as they have feelings that they have no control over and that must be torture especially if you know you can't do anything about it nor want to do anything about it because you know it's fucked up.

However fuck the ones who hurt kids for a power trip, who make and distribute child porn and people like Ian Watkins for who there are no words. I don't think I even consider him a nonce, I think he's just fucked up beyond belief. People are prone to react viciously though, whether it is a paedo with no desire to act and seeking help, a paedo harming a kid, and a Watkins type monster.
 
It's not abuse if a 13yo+ boy willingly sleeps with a woman of any age, he's lucky to be getting a good education.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top