The Paedophile Next Door

floggg · 28-11-2014 04:02PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Eh ............ is Boards not based on people offering their opinion ............ is that not what you have been doing on here???

I think I'll feel free to most my opinions if I so wish without approval from you

I've no problem with you posting your opinions.

You presented your opinion as an unqualified statement of fact however. Which it clearly isn't.

It's rather unhelpful when opinions are presented as facts, and while you are free to continue doing so, I am also free to continue to back up your assertions.

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 04:07PM

floggg wrote: »

I've no problem with you posting your opinions.

You presented your opinion as an unqualified statement of fact however. Which it clearly isn't.

It's rather unhelpful when opinions are presented as facts, and while you are free to continue doing so, I am also free to continue to back up your assertions.

Which part of my opinions have I stated as fact exactly???

floggg · 28-11-2014 04:16PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

So let's just be clear here with you also ......... you too are saying that fantasising about having sex with children (any child) whilst masturbating is the same as thinking about an adults of either genders in various scenarios whilst masturbating and is therefore ........ ok???

That is what you are also saying right? I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you .........

I have a feeling that you are trying to manipulate me into saying something "controversial" - and then try to use that to discredit my position (much like you are doing to nozzferhatoo well reasoned response).

The seemingly obvious point I and others are making is that as long as a persons fantasies remain as only that, and don't cause any harm or distress to the person involved, then a person is entitled to their fantasies and they shouldn't be subject to any moral scrutiny by others.

There are plenty of people with fantasies which I think are disturbing, disgusting or just downright strange - but as long as they aren't trying to live them out, or if they do that everybody involves freely consents and no harm is caused to unwilling parties, it's not for me to judge.

So whether you get off to the idea of having sex with a unicorn or children, as long as it stays in your head than that's your business.

I may find your fantasies morally repugnant but I can't stop you having them. And if jerking off to a mental image gets you through the day, then why would I try to police that (even if I could).

floggg · 28-11-2014 04:19PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Which part of my opinions have I stated as fact exactly???

The part I quoted obviously enough.

You made an unqualified statement that persons were born paedophiles in response to another poster - and so presented it as an established truth.

It's not. You were speculating.

floggg · 28-11-2014 04:25PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes I am ............. even more so if said straight man tells me in advance that he has fantasised about raping my daughter ............. so obviously I wouldn't do it :rolleyes:

If you had a hot daughter, then I think there would be a lot of straight men who might fantasise about having sex with her.

Very few of hem however would actually rape her if given the opportunity.

Edit - hot 17 year old plus daughter, which would have been apparent when read in the context of my previous posts

Grayson · 28-11-2014 04:28PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes I am ............. even more so if said straight man tells me in advance that he has fantasised about raping my daughter ............. so obviously I wouldn't do it :rolleyes:

That's not what paedophilia is. it's an attraction to children, not an attraction to raping children.

I'd leave my 17 year old daughter with a straight guy that i knew. I certainly wouldn't leave her with him if he expressed rape fantasies.

Eamondomc · 28-11-2014 04:30PM

floggg wrote: »

I have a feeling that you are trying to manipulate me into saying something "controversial" - and then try to use that to discredit my position (much like you are doing to nozzferhatoo well reasoned response).

The seemingly obvious point I and others are making is that as long as a persons fantasies remain as only that, and don't cause any harm or distress to the person involved, then a person is entitled to their fantasies and they shouldn't be subject to any moral scrutiny by others.

There are plenty of people with fantasies which I think are disturbing, disgusting or just downright strange - but as long as they aren't trying to live them out, or if they do that everybody involves freely consents and no harm is caused to unwilling parties, it's not for me to judge.

So whether you get off to the idea of having sex with a unicorn or children, as long as it stays in your head than that's your business.

I may find your fantasies morally repugnant but I can't stop you having them. And if jerking off to a mental image gets you through the day, then why would I try to police that (even if I could).

There is no telling what goes on in the mind of people thats for sure but if someone tells me that what is going on in their mind is of having sex with children then I can assure you they wont be alone with my children.

Eamondomc · 28-11-2014 04:43PM

If you asked people to come forward and tell their friends or family if they have paedophilia tendencies I would guess that very few would come forward. Maybe those that wouldnt would say its because they feel it would alienate them and no one would understand even though they would never act on it. Or maybe its because they think its wrong. But if they never come forward and never act on it we will never know anyway. But I think there will only ever be very few "outs" unless they do actually offend.

ceadaoin. · 28-11-2014 06:01PM

floggg wrote: »

If you had a hot daughter, then I think there would be a lot of straight men who might fantasise about having sex with her.

Very few of hem however would actually rape her if given the opportunity.

Edit - hot 17 year old plus daughter, which would have been apparent when read in the context of my previous posts

Paedophiles fantasize about and get off on raping young children. It can't be compared to someone fantasizing about consensual sex with an adult.

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 06:16PM

floggg wrote: »

The part I quoted obviously enough.

You made an unqualified statement that persons were born paedophiles in response to another poster - and so presented it as an established truth.

It's not. You were speculating.

It's my opinion that they are .......... or did I miss your post were you proved otherwise???

Or if it's only your opinion that paedophiles are not born paedophiles then you also are speculating ........... do you believe that your opinion is more valid than those of people who disagree with you???

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 06:23PM

floggg wrote: »

I have a feeling that you are trying to manipulate me into saying something "controversial" - and then try to use that to discredit my position (much like you are doing to nozzferhatoo well reasoned response).

The seemingly obvious point I and others are making is that as long as a persons fantasies remain as only that, and don't cause any harm or distress to the person involved, then a person is entitled to their fantasies and they shouldn't be subject to any moral scrutiny by others.

There are plenty of people with fantasies which I think are disturbing, disgusting or just downright strange - but as long as they aren't trying to live them out, or if they do that everybody involves freely consents and no harm is caused to unwilling parties, it's not for me to judge.

So whether you get off to the idea of having sex with a unicorn or children, as long as it stays in your head than that's your business.

I may find your fantasies morally repugnant but I can't stop you having them. And if jerking off to a mental image gets you through the day, then why would I try to police that (even if I could).

That's the part where paedophiles and their fantasies cross a line from "normal" people with kinky fantasies to a very dark part of a diseased mind.

There's a HUGE difference between fantasising about a unicorn and fantasising about children ........... and saying they are the "same" says a lot about you as well as being incredibly disrespectful to the survivors of child sex abuse.

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 06:37PM

floggg wrote: »

If you had a hot daughter, then I think there would be a lot of straight men who might fantasise about having sex with her.

Very few of hem however would actually rape her if given the opportunity.

Edit - hot 17 year old plus daughter, which would have been apparent when read in the context of my previous posts

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts ........ shall I point out the part you conveniently ignored?

I said if the straight man told me he fantasised about (pay attention now, this is the important part) raping my daughter then I would take issue with that ......... you miss it again??? It was the rape part ....... you get it now?

looking_around · 28-11-2014 07:07PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's the part where paedophiles and their fantasies cross a line from "normal" people with kinky fantasies to a very dark part of a diseased mind.

There's a HUGE difference between fantasising about a unicorn and fantasising about children ........... and saying they are the "same" says a lot about you as well as being incredibly disrespectful to the survivors of child sex abuse.

I'm a survivor of child abuse, sexual and emotional.....................

I think all fantasies are equal, in that they are thoughts, not actions and I just can't judge someone over thoughts, only actions.

Now, if a paedophile said they think child abuse should be ok...then you'd have a point.
but if they say they are attracted to children but know that attraction would be extremely harmful to the child etc.. well, we cant control what we like, only what we do about it.

floggg · 28-11-2014 08:29PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Paedophiles fantasize about and get off on raping young children. It can't be compared to someone fantasizing about consensual sex with an adult.

I don't know if they all fantasise about raping them per se.

Obviously you can't actually have sex with a child without raping them, but I wonder is rape a necessary part of he fantasy for these people.

Isn't it conceivable that they would fantasise about consensual sex with children - even though that's impossible to actually do in real life?

floggg · 28-11-2014 08:32PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

It's my opinion that they are .......... or did I miss your post were you proved otherwise???

Or if it's only your opinion that paedophiles are not born paedophiles then you also are speculating ........... do you believe that your opinion is more valid than those of people who disagree with you???

You didn't present it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact.

I just pointed out that you do not know the position either way and therefore your assertion was a speculative opinion. I didn't give any opinion either way.

As I am not in a position to say either way, and not having any insight into the subject, I won't speculate either way.

floggg · 28-11-2014 08:38PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's the part where paedophiles and their fantasies cross a line from "normal" people with kinky fantasies to a very dark part of a diseased mind.

There's a HUGE difference between fantasising about a unicorn and fantasising about children ........... and saying they are the "same" says a lot about you as well as being incredibly disrespectful to the survivors of child sex abuse.

Sorry, but you clearly are taking the bolded part out of context. The preceding wording refered to people who don't act out their fantasies - which would im sure include many peadophiles.

It's only child abusers who do act it out, and they are competley separate to the point I was making, which is that everybody is entitle to their fantasies even if we don't agree with them.

And thanking you for confirming my suspicions - you were looking for a statement to jump on, and use it as a basis for ad hominems and try and to assume some supposed moral high ground.

I'm slow clapping for you here.

Edit - your insinuations about me and nozzferhatoo show you miss our points entirely. It's not that we are ambivalent to the risk or the welfare of children, it's that we don't see the risk.

You appear to be too hung up on the ode that paedophiles = evil to consider another perspective though, and seem to think anybody who doesn't share your stance favours child abusers over children.

floggg · 28-11-2014 08:44PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts ........ shall I point out the part you conveniently ignored?

I said if the straight man told me he fantasised about (pay attention now, this is the important part) raping my daughter then I would take issue with that ......... you miss it again??? It was the rape part ....... you get it now?

See my response to caedoin above. Since it's impossible to have consensual sex with a child, then any attempt to act on those fantasies will be rape as a matter of fact.

But that doesn't mean any person who fantasies about having sex with a child Fantasises about raping them. Fantasies are about suspending reality, so I'm sure they can conceive in their head that it's consensual.

I didn't want to get dragged around in circles trying to argue that distinction, participatory given your refusal to accept the legitimacy of personal fantasies.

I hoped a simple analogy would help you see the point I was trying to make easier.

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 11:08PM

floggg wrote: »

You didn't present it as an opinion. You stated it as a fact.

I just pointed out that you do not know the position either way and therefore your assertion was a speculative opinion. I didn't give any opinion either way.

As I am not in a position to say either way, and not having any insight into the subject, I won't speculate either way.

Because I didn't specifically say "in my opinion ......." you assumed I was saying " ......... is a fact" even though I didn't say that either ........... where's the logic in that???

By the way you haven't specified that your posts are only your opinion .......... am I to assume you are therefore stating them as facts???

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 11:12PM

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, but you clearly are taking the bolded part out of context. The preceding wording refered to people who don't act out their fantasies - which would im sure include many peadophiles.

It's only child abusers who do act it out, and they are competley separate to the point I was making, which is that everybody is entitle to their fantasies even if we don't agree with them.

And thanking you for confirming my suspicions - you were looking for a statement to jump on, and use it as a basis for ad hominems and try and to assume some supposed moral high ground.

I'm slow clapping for you here.

Edit - your insinuations about me and nozzferhatoo show you miss our points entirely. It's not that we are ambivalent to the risk or the welfare of children, it's that we don't see the risk.

You appear to be too hung up on the ode that paedophiles = evil to consider another perspective though, and seem to think anybody who doesn't share your stance favours child abusers over children.

I'm saying that the fact that some people fantasise about having sex, ie raping, children separates them from other "normal", albeit kinky, fantasies ........

Also the fact that you "don't see the risk" when it comes to paedophiles and children shows an ambivalent attitude to whole issue ........

MadDog76 · 28-11-2014 11:17PM

floggg wrote: »

See my response to caedoin above. Since it's impossible to have consensual sex with a child, then any attempt to act on those fantasies will be rape as a matter of fact.

But that doesn't mean any person who fantasies about having sex with a child Fantasises about raping them. Fantasies are about suspending reality, so I'm sure they can conceive in their head that it's consensual.

I didn't want to get dragged around in circles trying to argue that distinction, participatory given your refusal to accept the legitimacy of personal fantasies.

I hoped a simple analogy would help you see the point I was trying to make easier.

Again you chose to ignore the part of that post that didn't suit you .......... you were referring to a 17 year old plus daughter so fantasising about having sex with her didn't necessarily mean rape .......... you seem to be hard of understanding so I'll repeat it (again :rolleyes:) ......... I may not like a man fantasising about having sex with my 17 year old daughter but I'd accept it as normal .......... I would not accept as normal a man fantasising about raping my 17 year old daughter ......... you'll eventually get what I'm saying, I have faith in you

Eamondomc · 28-11-2014 11:21PM

In the 12th century, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.[3]
"Quote from wikipedia"

We would hope the world has changed. Certainly attitudes have. But what is weird now was once accepted

Eamondomc · 28-11-2014 11:34PM

Marriage
In most jurisdictions, age of consent laws do not apply if the parties are legally married to each other.
Close-in-age exemptions
Some jurisdictions have laws explicitly allowing sexual acts with minors under the age of consent if their partner is close in age to them. For instance in Canada the age of consent is 16, but there are two close-in-age exemptions: sex with minors aged 14–15 is permitted if the partner is less than five years older, and sex with minors aged 12–13 is permitted if the partner is less than two years older.[26] Other countries state that the sexual conduct with the minor is not to be punished if the partners are of a similar age and development: for instance the age of consent in Finland is 16, but the law states that the act will not be punished if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved".[27] Another approach takes the form of a stipulation that sexual intercourse between a minor and an adult is legal under the condition that the latter does not exceed a certain age. For example, the age of consent in the US state of Delaware is 18, but it is allowed for teenagers aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual intercourse as long as the older partner is younger than 30.[28] In Slovenia, the age of consent in 15, but the law requires that there is "a marked discrepancy between the maturity of the perpetrator and that of the victim".[29]
"Quote from wikipedia"

looking_around · 28-11-2014 11:53PM

Eamondomc wrote: »

Marriage
In most jurisdictions, age of consent laws do not apply if the parties are legally married to each other.
Close-in-age exemptions
Some jurisdictions have laws explicitly allowing sexual acts with minors under the age of consent if their partner is close in age to them. For instance in Canada the age of consent is 16, but there are two close-in-age exemptions: sex with minors aged 14–15 is permitted if the partner is less than five years older, and sex with minors aged 12–13 is permitted if the partner is less than two years older.[26] Other countries state that the sexual conduct with the minor is not to be punished if the partners are of a similar age and development: for instance the age of consent in Finland is 16, but the law states that the act will not be punished if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved".[27] Another approach takes the form of a stipulation that sexual intercourse between a minor and an adult is legal under the condition that the latter does not exceed a certain age. For example, the age of consent in the US state of Delaware is 18, but it is allowed for teenagers aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual intercourse as long as the older partner is younger than 30.[28] In Slovenia, the age of consent in 15, but the law requires that there is "a marked discrepancy between the maturity of the perpetrator and that of the victim".[29]
"Quote from wikipedia"

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say about this? no one is arguing consent laws, nor that sex with minors is right(for your post above this one).

floggg · 29-11-2014 03:16AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm saying that the fact that some people fantasise about having sex, ie raping, children separates them from other "normal", albeit kinky, fantasies ........

Also the fact that you "don't see the risk" when it comes to paedophiles and children shows an ambivalent attitude to whole issue ........

Since you've chosen to ignore the why in my position, theres really no point.

floggg · 29-11-2014 03:22AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Again you chose to ignore the part of that post that didn't suit you .......... you were referring to a 17 year old plus daughter so fantasising about having sex with her didn't necessarily mean rape .......... you seem to be hard of understanding so I'll repeat it (again :rolleyes:) ......... I may not like a man fantasising about having sex with my 17 year old daughter but I'd accept it as normal .......... I would not accept as normal a man fantasising about raping my 17 year old daughter ......... you'll eventually get what I'm saying, I have faith in you

What difference does it make if it "normal" if it stays in their head?

MadDog76 · 29-11-2014 03:41AM

floggg wrote: »

What difference does it make if it "normal" if it stays in their head?

The difference is knowing what's in their head .........

Eamondomc · 29-11-2014 11:53AM

looking_around wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say about this? no one is arguing consent laws, nor that sex with minors is right(for your post above this one).

I m just showing that sex with juveniles is not always viewed as paedophillia. It can happen legally sometimes depending on the laws in various states.
Just everyones views on paedophillia are not the same and both sides can produce valid arguments for or against.

shamrock55 · 29-11-2014 11:57AM

Mr.McLovin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/i-have-got-a-problem-i-need-help-paedophile-to-out-himself-in-new-channel-4-documentary-30769200.html

Is there anyway of treating these people that works?

Yes its called a bullet!!

looking_around · 29-11-2014 12:10PM

Eamondomc wrote: »

I m just showing that sex with juveniles is not always viewed as paedophillia. It can happen legally sometimes depending on the laws in various states.
Just everyones views on paedophillia are not the same and both sides can produce valid arguments for or against.

technically, if 'loving' and not for a power trip, it would be.

What you mean to say is that sex with juveniles isn't always seen as child abuse.

Grayson · 29-11-2014 12:33PM

looking_around wrote: »

technically, if 'loving' and not for a power trip, it would be.

What you mean to say is that sex with juveniles isn't always seen as child abuse.

I think that's what he means but i think he also means that it's not always paedophillia either. Those marriages took place out of necessity/duty/loads a reasons. but an attraction to children probably wasn't one of the reasons.

Really though, it's all down to semantics. I'm pretty certain we generally understand what everyone is saying, it's just phrasing it to make sure there's no misunderstandings.

For example if i say that historically there was no difference between a post pubescent 15 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, I'm not condoning having sex with a 15 year old. I'm just saying that at that point in time there was very little practical difference.

Personally i think a 17 year old limit is both too young and too old. A lot of teenagers could manage to have sex responsibly (with each other). But as a society we grow up a lot later than we used to. An 18 year old now has less responsibility than a 15 year old did 100 years ago, or than a 13 year old 1000 years ago. Age of consent is based partly on the physical maturity of the body but it's also based on the maturity of the person. That is, are they able to handle sex? Whereas puberty is now occurring earlier than ever, teenagers are growing up slower than ever. We have a situation were 14 year olds are physically mature enough to have sex but 18 year olds aren't mentally mature enough.

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments