Moderators: Azrael, Prelates, Moderators General
scwizard wrote:@lordogreus:
...
If that is the case wouldn't what you have here by a psychological problem? One that you say has been causing you to be depressed stressed etc. And if it is a psychological problem isn't the solution to figure out what's causing it and fix it? And if you can't do that have someone (a psychologist) figure out what's causing it and help you fix it?
Basically, if you believe that there is some psychological reason for your pedophilia (and that's it's not just "an orientation" as some pedophiles believe) then why haven't you tried to do anything about it thus far?
lordogreus wrote:the damage is done and it's unlikely that it can be undone.

Saurus33 wrote:Do you find loli and so on useful/relieving? Do they actually help with any urges you might have?
Bright Shadows wrote:If there was someone you could talk to about this, do you think you would have an easier time ignoring urges? Like, a group support system or something?
scwizard wrote:Which is more of an attraction to you? Prepubescent innocence or the prepubescent body?
People mainly attracted to the innocence aspect have the option of having a legal relationship that involves ageplay.
If it's the body, then my second question is why do you think you find that attractive? Do you believe you have some of pedo gene or what?
Bright Shadows wrote:That said, getting counseling if you have serious emotional issues, particularly if privacy is something required, is almost always a good idea...
scwizard wrote:@lordogreus:
Which is more of an attraction to you? Prepubescent innocence or the prepubescent body?
People mainly attracted to the innocence aspect have the option of having a legal relationship that involves ageplay.
If it's the body, then my second question is why do you think you find that attractive? Do you believe you have some of pedo gene or what?

this isn't my cowMighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.
this isn't my cowMighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
scwizard wrote:You don't know how likely or unlikely it is that it can be undone until you try...
I don't get your reasoning at all. If I had a problem this serious I would attempt to change it, only after trying and failing and trying and failing five times or so over would I give up on trying.
lordogreus wrote:scwizard wrote:You don't know how likely or unlikely it is that it can be undone until you try...
As far as I know, there are no ways to 'undo' pedophilic urges...
lordogreus wrote:Even if I were happy with her as a person, in terms of personality, etc., complications would inevitably arise. I have a fear of intimacy and an almost misogynistic attitude regarding women approximately my age -- things which would thwart any effort to have a sexual relationship with said person.
From what I've observed there seems to a correlation between an attitude of "adult women are disgusting whores" and "little girls are so innocent, they'd make such a perfect girlfriend." I kind of wish I'd saved some quotes from investment banker threads on /r9k/ to provide something to back up this claim.lordogreus wrote:I am curious, though. You seem confident that it is at least worth a try. Have you come across any information which suggests that there is a way to undo this (viz., to return the subject to a 'normal' sexual attraction)?
Mr. Smiles wrote:Here are my questions on the topic (I've only read through page one and a bit after, and all of the most recent page, so if these have been discussed please redirect me):
From the arguments I've read, the majority of the justification for acceptance of homosexuality are based on the relationship being more than sex, beyond physical attraction, at least such that a relationship without sex would still prosper (even short-term, I'm not trying to bring up the argument of it being unable to last for years) at least as well as a heterosexual relationship without sex. With pedophilia, is such a relationship possible? It seems to me that without the possibility of such a relationship, pedophilia then is *just* sex, which means it is just the brain reacting positively to certain stimuli, which would force it to be judged by a different standard.
My other question is where should a line be drawn? Be it by society, psychology, or whatever, at what point are a person's predispositions, be they caused by one's genes or environment, considered to be beyond what should be allowable? What predispositions should be allowed to continue with no reaction from others if no action is taken by the predisposed? Is there any such point at which a person is "broken" and should be deemed incapable of living normally in the world without supervision, guidance, or help?
Edit: After reading more of this topic, I'm starting to realize something. Many people are asking how we should manage people with potentially dangerous or harmful urges (e.g. pedophilia), whether through forced treatment or optional treatment or whatnot. What I really believe is that, in many ways, that is the job of society as it is now. There are many ways in which society must enforce certain rules that the law cannot, because society has the ability to react on a case-by-case basis if enough decent people are involved. Many people argue that society just attacks people who are different. I would like to state that this is not so. Certainly, people will screw things up royally and attack those who are different just for that reason. We have thousands of years of anecdotal evidence to prove that. But many of the people arguing these things attempt to remove the authority from society entirely, while maintaining that there is still a responsibility, which then must be picked up by the law. What we need is not to say that society should never be able to say a pedophile is wrong for wanting to touch little kids in bad places, but to reform ourselves so that we look at these situations and see whether a person needs help, and to make sure that person gets the help they need.
scwizard wrote:I'm not saying you'd be able to have a romantic relationship or anything to a woman if you just aren't fundamentally attracted to them, but I know some gay guys have close female friends.
Malice wrote:My other question is where should a line be drawn? Be it by society, psychology, or whatever, at what point are a person's predispositions, be they caused by one's genes or environment, considered to be beyond what should be allowable? What predispositions should be allowed to continue with no reaction from others if no action is taken by the predisposed? Is there any such point at which a person is "broken" and should be deemed incapable of living normally in the world without supervision, guidance, or help?
At the point where your predispositions translate into (harmful) action. Nobody should ever be deemed "broken" or "forbidden" or "incapable" just for having a potential. It's only once they've proven they're unable to control it, and that this has resulted in harm, that society can safely take steps to deal with their problem.
Mr. Smiles wrote:But how can society act in a way conducive to protecting the rights of all involved without being purely reactive in its countermeasures? I'm not saying that this is impossible, but as this discussion has brought up, some kind of resolution here is necessary.
scwizard wrote:Also if you look at it, a relationship between a grown man and a little girl isn't a equal relationship. You would be in a huge position of power over her. She's innocent and your not, she's small and you're big, you could probably out think her or manipulate her emotions and beliefs (which is what grooming is all about after all).
So even if you can't stop yourself form fantasizing about prepubescent girls sexually, you can potentially stop yourself from fantasizing about the kind of fucked up shit a "romantic" relationship with a prepubescent girl would entail. And even if you can't bring yourself to be sexually attracted to an adult woman, you can potentially get over your aversion to them. I'm not saying you'd be able to have a romantic relationship or anything to a woman if you just aren't fundamentally attracted to them, but I know some gay guys have close female friends.
Malice wrote:Really? You know people who have female friends, even though they have no desire to have sex with those women? How exotic. Tell me more about this strange idea. No, really. I mean, I know some straight guys who have close male friends even though they have no desire to sleep with them, but this, this is just beyond the pale.
Ya, I agree. There's pedophiles and there's rapists, and a rapist is probably more likely to hurt a child than a pedophile. The desire for a relationship built on top of control is a rapists desire, not necessarily a pedophile's desire.mochafairy wrote:I'm 99% sure he knows that and that's at least part of the reason he hasn't acted.
It seems that they do want a "relationship" with a child, not just sex. So what I was hoping is that if I could get them to think carefully about what such a "relationship" would entail then they might no longer desire it.Heuladru wrote:the only thing keeping me from starting up a relationship with a socially-outcast 12-year-old (and there are no shortage of them on social-networking sites) is my self-control
mochafairy wrote:but telling someone that their thoughts are "fucked up shit" isn't helping them
scwizard wrote:Ya, I agree. There's pedophiles and there's rapists, and a rapist is probably more likely to hurt a child than a pedophile. The desire for a relationship built on top of control is a rapists desire, not necessarily a pedophile's desire.mochafairy wrote:I'm 99% sure he knows that and that's at least part of the reason he hasn't acted.
But I believe that it's impossible to have a adult&child sexual/romantic relationship that's not built on control. So I was thinking that if lordogreus and Heuladru are pretty decent guys and didn't want that kind of relationship, they could realize on the mental level that therefore they also don't want a child&adult relationship. Right now due to quotes like:It seems that they do want a "relationship" with a child, not just sex. So what I was hoping is that if I could get them to think carefully about what such a "relationship" would entail then they might no longer desire it.Heuladru wrote:the only thing keeping me from starting up a relationship with a socially-outcast 12-year-old (and there are no shortage of them on social-networking sites) is my self-control
Azrael wrote:Your view of women certainly can be addressed via counseling. And since as of yet you [can't / won't / don't wish to] pinpoint a cause behind your sexual urges shifting towards female children, I'm going to suggest that the correlation between that significant of a fear of women your own age and pedophilia is too strong to outright ignore as being potentially causal.
scwizard wrote:So even if you can't stop yourself form fantasizing about prepubescent girls sexually, you can potentially stop yourself from fantasizing about the kind of fucked up shit a "romantic" relationship with a prepubescent girl would entail. And even if you can't bring yourself to be sexually attracted to an adult woman, you can potentially get over your aversion to them.
lordogreus wrote:I have a fear of intimacy and an almost misogynistic attitude regarding women approximately my age...
------------
... Thanks to the behavior of a couple of them, my feelings turned into resentment. By the time I had entered college, I completely lost all interest in trying to form romantic relationships with my female peers. During a brief phase around that time, I nearly felt asexual ...
... I viewed their behavior as pathetic, because I was witnessing people going to great lengths to accomplish something which I did not find appealing myself ...
... It was a revelation that came out of the blue by happenstance. Perhaps it satisfied some need I had. Perhaps young girls represented a class of human females which did not intimidate me, though I tend to view this as specious and simplistic, but perhaps relevant.
Bottom line, the attraction is too strong to be explained simply as an alternative to female peers. And why is it that the onset of puberty makes the person suddenly undesirable? I might be able to explain away why I don't care for girls my age, but why children? Was it simply a chance fixation?
------------
... and I can't even bring myself to respect many of them. (this applies to a lot of men, too, but it still makes it hard to form even platonic relationships)
Azrael wrote:Regardless of dealing with the external circumstances that bring you to reveal these facts, I would suggest some form of counseling to address *those* issues. Socialization isn't the end all and be all, but being unable to relate to the rest of population without revulsion is a significant handicap.
You're 24. You are not condemned to a life of social ineptitude. Many, many people are still growing up socially at your age. Some are lucky enough to be very socially able, some are not. But all are more likely to grow and change over the next few years than they are to stagnate. If you despair of ever changing, you won't change, but if you keep an open mind about it, it will likely happen. This, of course, is purely with reference to your social skills. Your sexuality is a thornier issue.lordogreus wrote:I don't see how something like social ineptitude could be repaired, when it took a couple decades for me to become this way.

Dream wrote:You're 24. You are not condemned to a life of social ineptitude. Many, many people are still growing up socially at your age. [...]
Malice wrote:Pedophilia is not associated with present distress or disability (no more so than homosexuality, at least). It may or may not be a manifestation of behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual; I don't think anything of that sort has been proven either way yet. It is sexually deviant behavior, resulting from a conflict primarily between the individual and society; but again, it cannot be proven to be a symptom of dysfunction in the individual, any more than homosexuality can. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be described as a mental illness.
Onideus wrote:Further, since I brought it up, do not ever confuse adult babies with pedophiles. Adult babies are essentially anti-pedophiles, they are the exact polar opposites. Basically when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine themselves *AS* the child, where as a pedophile imagines themselves RAPING the child. Pedophilia is about the destruction of innocence, where as infantilism is about the embodiment innocence.
Heuladru wrote:* Consent: agreement that something can be done involving the person giving consent. Anyone who is able to say "yes" or "no" is able to consent to something.
* Informed consent: A legal term meaning consent given with a full understanding of what is being agreed to. Since this is hard to determine, courts of law usually use other measures to determine if the "informed" part of informed consent is present, eg. a patient has been given all applicable information about a medical procedure, or a participant in a sexual encounter is over a given age.
* Rape: Sexual intercourse that takes place without the consent of at least one of those involved.
* Statutory rape: Sexual intercourse that takes place with the consent of all involved, but where at least one participant is legally unable to give informed consent.
Consent is an act of reason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercises sufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decision demonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers. It is an act unaffected by Fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake when these factors are not the reason for the consent.
Even in cases where it can be proven that the minor victim was a willing participant, a sex act or improper touching is still a crime because children cannot legally consent to anything.
Onideus wrote:Further, since I brought it up, do not ever confuse adult babies with pedophiles. Adult babies are essentially anti-pedophiles, they are the exact polar opposites. Basically when an adult baby looks at a picture of a child in diapers they imagine themselves *AS* the child, where as a pedophile imagines themselves RAPING the child. Pedophilia is about the destruction of innocence, where as infantilism is about the embodiment innocence.
ManaUser wrote:In any case no amount of informing will make a difference, the law just assumes, or defines, that a minor cannot consent.
ManaUser wrote:Second, in context I'm assuming you mean "raping", in the taking by force sense rather than a legal sense. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Is that what you think pedophiles fantasize about? Granted there's no way I can know, but it sure doesn't mesh with what lordogreus said, or really anything I've ever learned about pedophiles outside of tabloids. A person who got off on destruction of innocence might well make children a target of their fantasies, but it doesn't follow that this is the only reason someone could be attracted to children. It might be somewhat more reasonable (though still a generalization) to say pedophiles are attracted to innocence, but to assume they want to destroy it is a whole 'nother logical leap.
ManaUser wrote:Indeed a fairly common theory about pedophiles (besides "they're evil") is that they, or their sexuality, is immature. If that's true (or for those whom it's true for) it would make sense if they wanted to interact with a child sexually, but in a childlike (innocent) way.
ManaUser wrote:Finally, pedophiles aren't a monolithic group, that's probably the biggest mistake people make about any minority, try to avoid it.
And lordogreus, I apologize for going on talking about pedophiles as though there isn't one here. Of course "1" is a heck of a small sample size statistically, but one pedophile (who will admit) is more than most people ever hear from, so I really appreciate you coming here. I'm curious if you agree with what my thoughts above, and even more so if you don't.
That being said, I do think that there is some wiggle room when it comes to the legal age of consent, but the problem is that some people might be capable of giving consent relatively early, while others might take longer. How one would go about determining whether someone is capable sounds tricky to me. My guess would be that lawmakers delineated the nebulous age group between prepubescence and adulthood, and chose a line which seemed to border the latter side more often than not.

sweet_concorde wrote:A child will agree to a sexual relationship/encounter, but I don't think that should imply that a child wants it or is okay with it (or that they aren't harmed in a thousand different ways). Saying a child can consent - but just can't legally consent (due to age limits) - to me, downplays the fact that the child isn't really okay with it, even if they agree to it. I don't know what English word to use in this case.
I'm assuming I read way too far into Heuladru's post of terms, but I finished it worrying that he believed that a child could agree to a sexual relationship with an adult - but that it just wouldn't be legal. I don't know if Heuladru feels that way about it - I just read it that way.
Faranya wrote:Yes, that nebulous area was attempted to be addressed by the updated law here in Canada. Age of consent was raised from 14 to 16, but they included provisions for a 5 year buffer zone, essentially meaning that, while a 14 year old is not legally capable of consenting to sex with, say a 30 year old, they are able to consent to anyone up to five years older.
lordogreus wrote:What strikes me as odd in this case, is that it does not address the ability to consent; it circumvents the issue by implying that it is not the capacity to consent or the lack thereof, but rather the age difference which leads to whatever deleterious psychological effects might be inflicted in cases of sexual abuse. The one problem this might address is that of exploitation, insofar as a greater age disparity is proportionate to the extent of the exploitation. This implies that a 19-year-old would be less likely to take advantage of a 14-year-old than, say, a 20-year-old. The reasons for this elude me, but I suppose a line had to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I would prefer that a specific age be selected which represents the point where an individual is most likely to be fully able to grasp the ramifications of becoming sexually active. In regards to this Canadian law, it seems to state that an individual can consent to sex at a relatively young age, provided the partner is not so much older that there is a risk of exploitation.
lordogreus wrote:So as not to stray too far from the topic at hand, I shall return to the subject of a prepubescent's ability to consent. I do not have the relevant information presently available, but I think that it is safe to say that children can be sexually curious; naturally, however, it does not necessarily follow that they understand the effects it can have on their minds and their bodies.
There is a tangential issue here: can children be prepared psychologically for sexual activity, even before they have matured to the proper age? If the issue is whether they grasp everything sexuality entails, could they not be informed of these things such that they could consent to sex?
lordogreus wrote:The first obvious problems, I think, would deal with the physical effects: STDs, pregnancy (if possible, though the youngest girl to give birth, I have heard, was five), and other damage incurred. Even if the first two can be dismissed through the use of condoms, I don't see any way around the third, except that such damage can still occur at later ages; though, if I'm not mistaken, it tends not to be as severe. (My friend's ex-girlfriend was evidently sexually assaulted as a child; as a result, she is unable to have children, I believe.) For that reason, I now turn to the possibility of other forms of sexuality that do not involve phallic penetration.
lordogreus wrote:Could there be a distinct set of laws dealing with non-coital sex play? This would be things such as fondling, fellatio and cunnilingus, and even simple kissing. I suppose there is still the risk of catching STDs, so why don't we strip it down to the bare minimum: touching and kissing? It seems conceivable to me that a child, at least after a certain age but before puberty, could agree to this. One problem which I would anticipate, however, is that once a child agrees to this level of sexuality, the issue becomes a slippery slope. If an adult and a child are already in such a situation without outside supervision, it would not be difficult to add more and more activities too soon.
lordogreus wrote:I do agree that this is all a moot point, because I cannot imagine such a scenario becoming a reality. 1. I would not expect there to be many parents out there who would let their child become involved in such things (though that doesn't seem to stop teens). 2. The 'slippery slope' scenario seems likely. 3. There is a greater risk of exploitation. This brings us back to the beginning, where one must ask, at what point do these issue become sufficiently mitigated such that consent is permissible?
ManaUser wrote:lordogreus wrote:There is a tangential issue here: can children be prepared psychologically for sexual activity, even before they have matured to the proper age? If the issue is whether they grasp everything sexuality entails, could they not be informed of these things such that they could consent to sex?
I've wondered that myself. Well nearly, I wasn't thinking so much in terms of training kids to be ready for sex (which does sound kinda creepy) but whether some of the psychological harm from childhood sexual contact is cultural. (Which doesn't mean not it's real!) The alternative, that it really is an innate aspect of humans that we are damaged by this, is frankly a little hard for me to believe.
Users browsing this forum: Rxnudamq and 1 guest