Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, May 26, 2013.
Thats what you do if you want to friend....tee hee
And then watch...
What is the group actually advocating? I don't have a failbook.
Can they be that stupid?
Acceptance of men with sexual desires towards children who have not had any sexual contact with them.
Still pretty unacceptable.
Yes, yes they can Anon.
More than you can ever imagine.
ITS OKAY GUYS!!!!!!
THE PAGE IS GONE!!!
High fives to everybody!!
If the page is as you described it, namely about gaining acceptance of the sexual desire but in no way advocating anyone to act upon said desire, then I really have to disagree that it is “pretty unacceptable”. I would actually go further and speculate that such an attitude may indeed be harmful in the long run.
Let me break this down to first principles by asking this question – “Why do we have a level of protectionism towards children?”. The answer is because we, as a society, have reasoned that a child is not a fully developed human being and that they may not be capable of making fully informed and consenting choices. Children can lack sufficient life experience or lack sufficient mental development or whatever that we, as a society, feel are necessary components in order for a choice to be informed and consenting. We get this idea about child vulnerability, and the issues surrounding prevention of child exploitation that flows from this are easily understood.
But, assuming your description is accurate, I don’t see what the issue of child protection has to do with what the facebook page seems to advocating. To illustrate what I’m seeing here I’ll use the following analogies:
- Some people are gay, and since the target of gay affection (another man/woman) is deemed capable of giving consent there is no issue in acting upon that affection.
- Some people are attracted to fat people, and since the target of that attraction (another woman/man) is deemed capable of giving consent there is no issue in acting upon that attraction.
- Some people get off on threesomes/foursomes, and since the targets of that desire (other women/men) are deemed capable of giving consent there is no issue in acting upon such a desire.
I hope you see that there are two very distinct issues involved here. The first issue is recognising the desire/attraction/affection that a person has, and the second issue is whether it is acceptable for said person to act upon said desire/attraction/affection. The second, which involves child vulnerability, we would both agree on.
I want this point to be crystal clear. What sexually turns a person on is not something that is a choice. Given this observation, the question then becomes how we as a society should approach cases where acting upon specific sexual desires are considered unacceptable. How should we as a society approach cases of people who these sexual desires?
I, for one, believe that recognising the existence of such sexual desires (in this case paedophilia) is much more helpful in the long run. Talking these issues through can help people with these desires to develop coping mechanisms and skills to ensure they never act upon those desires. Hiding this topic away, as branding the facebook page as ‘pretty unacceptable’ is doing, will only prevent the development of this dialogue and the associated coping skills. Making discussing this topic in public impossible will only drive those people underground – and this is the reason why I stated above that I consider your attitude to this to be unhelpful in the long run. It is not possible to simply make paedophiles into non-paedophiles, biology and human nature just doesn’t work that way.
The best analogy for all of this is one of alcoholism. Many people have a misconception that it is possible to have been an alcoholic in the past while not being an alcoholic now. That’s not really how it works, in that the fundamental psychological makeup that made a person turn to alcoholism never really goes away. This is a concept that is quite commonly emphasised in AA, and ‘recovered alcoholics’ are really alcoholics that developed the skills or adopted the lifestyle changes needed to keep them from turning to alcoholism. This is about recognising the existence of traits that make one an ‘alcoholic’ – an important first step on the road to recovery. Open and free dialogue on these issues, and associated skills development and knowledge of lifestyle changes that comes with this dialogue, are the cornerstones to handling the issue of alcoholism.
Take the same thinking and reasoning that underpins how people successfully deal with alcoholism, and apply it to the present case of paedophilia. There are parallels that can be learned from – provided we don’t label the process as being “pretty unacceptable” and avoid the discussions needed.
You don't understand the implication of what a page like this can have an an individual's psyche.
Especially someone who is desperately seeking acceptance of this kind of behavior towards children.
They find some place where their ridiculous notions and desires are rationalized away and they slowly lose that inhibition they have about going out and peeping on kid in play grounds, taking pics etc, and almost always it escalates until tragedy strikes.
Pages like this can offer that last push someone with those nefarious thoughts needs to go out and find a child to abuse.
Yeah, go tell survivors of child sexual abuse that talking through with their abusers will help in the long run and see what happens, you dipshit.
Did the page advocate that? Did it support it. Did in encourage it?
This is akin to stating that a website devoted to S&M (to take an example) would help encourage someone to go out and kidnap/rape somebody. A website like the S&M site could, with logic equally vacuous to your own, offer that last push someone with those nefarious thoughts needs to go out and find a victim to kidnap/rape.
Holy strawman batman!
Let me put this in big fucking letters to people don’t miss it:
Having a desire is not the same as acting on that desire.
Yeah but having a place where its rationalized away gives way to more dubious thoughts and possibly acting out those thoughts in real life with a child.
But there's a simple test to detect pedophiles who would never act out on their fantasies verses the ones who would.
Oh wait, there isn't.
Inappropriate sexual attraction to children is often the result of mental trauma when oneself was a child.
If these guys were there discussing their therapy as a genuine support group, it would be one thing.
But they are discussing their right to their fantasies. Fantasies that a statistically significant number act out on. The sad reality is that pedophilia has been with us for eons and all it seems to do is keep replicating pain like a virus.
This shit certainly is inappropriate for a venue such as FB. Or any other legit social/blog service on the internet.
IMO:What makes other sexual practice tolerable is a tacit agreement to experiment only with other consenting adults. By it's very nature, adult consent is not involved in pedophila.
This is utterly vacuous. It is like claiming that talking about heterosexual attraction will lead some to go and commit rape.
I don’t see how anything is being rationalised away either – those desires/attractions exist regardless of whether or not you accept their existence. When Emma Watson appeared in the first Harry Potter movie and most of the male organs in the room had the “I’d like to bone that” fantasy it did not mean the room was filled with paedophiles – but it does illustrate that sexual desire acts across a spectrum rather than a black/white system.
Dox? I remember similar arguments being made against gays and, frankly, this claims sounds like similarly made-up bs.
Let’s ban violent video games and movies too. After all, they represent fantasies that a statistically significant number act out on.
I know I’m probably the lone voice here, but I want someone to present some hard evidence on this point. A certain number of people fantasise about killing people (your boss, your wife/husband, your auditor, whomever), and only a very small percentage of such people ever act out their fantasy. Similarly, a certain number of people fantasise about fucking the opposite sex, and only a very small percentage of such people ever end up raping someone.
Does anyone have any hard evidence to suggest that, out of the people who have a sexual attraction to children, that more than a small percentage ever actually act on that attraction? The reason I ask this question, and ask for hard evidence, is because so far in the responses to me this seems to an underlying assumption of those responses.
There also seems to another assumption that all manner of violent fantasies (rape, murder, whatever) are ok, but that these particular fantasies are off limits. The different between desire and acting on a desire is understood, apparently, in all cases bar the latter. Hmmmm.
Didn’t I cover this previously?
I hope you don't have children.
yeah they are not, but this is a fucking anti pedophilia forum, you fucking moron.
Im sure that in the anti rape forum they will see more eye to eye with you regarding the thoughts expressed in your comment.
Sounds like a strawman argument.
Personal attacks don't ever help.
Pornography and Violence Against Women, 1980.
“Pornography, Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape,” Journal of Communication, 1982.
“The Effect of Erotica Featuring Sadomasochism and Bestiality of Motivated Inter-Male Aggressions,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1981. 4 Rape and Marriage, 1982.
“Where Do You Draw the Line?” 1974.
“Legitimate Violence and Rape: A Test of the Cultural Spillover Theory,” 1985
Even if people havent acted on their sick desires and fantasies their is still a problem. If they obsess over and continuously play out these acts of pedophilia, even if only in their minds, these urges may become uncontrollable and they could act on them. Also, if they start talking about these desires with like minded people they may start to justify and rationalize being a pedophile, another scary thought! If people have these desires they need to seek treatment from a licensed professional, not fuel the disire by sharing tips and strategies with fellow pedos!!!
Similar arguments? The only arguments I ever heard conflating gays and pedos were accusations of the dangers of gays molesting children, not gays having been molested as a child themselves. The comparison is of course silly because gays don't molest children, pedophiles do.
I have no numbers at hand, but forensic psychiatry acknowledges certain stressors in formative years that may have correlation with later psychopathology. Incest/molestation is one of those stressors. It is a pretty common denominator in the case histories of rapists, murderers and other anti-social types. Not all pedos are going to act on their fantasies, but hosting a hugbox where they can give each other validation and encouragement should be outside the purview of mainstream social media.
I was actually trying to give these folk a compassionate opt-out. I would suspect from the number of incest/pedo survivors I've known over the years that the problem is of epidemic proportions. Odds are they're victims too. I'd rather see them in therapy than jail.
This is true. However what we are talking about here is rape. There are people who's sexual desire is to rape, or to beat and kill.
S and M is between consenting adults, there are "safe words" and safety measures. Not in rape. Its non consensual violence.
They are rapists.
They are rap- you get the pictures
No. The best analogy is rape
I try to call out bullshit whenever I see it. Just because doing so will earn some insults and facile responses doesn’t mean the endeavour of calling out bullshit should be shirked.
Not really. The distinction between the desire and the act is understood in other contexts but, for some reason possibly to do with the rabid anti-paedophile sentiment in this forum, that distinction appears to be lost here.
Sometimes they can, make a person feel better and allow them to offload and whatnot. I don’t really mind that. But the outing an anon sock for expressing an unpopular opinion? That’s a different matter.
*Note I’m not directing this comments towards yourself, but rather to the body of people who cite papers and books like the above to make claims regarding pornography being a contributory factor in violence and rape.*
It looks like I really am going to be the bad guy in this thread, but I think the above needs a response. The first three are clinical studies, and I’ll go into that in depth below. The last study is about a correlation which would be expected, but it provides no support for causation. This is like people who were arrested for gang violence similarly admitting they had practiced firing guns in the manner they had seen in films and training materials, while those films and training materials were not what got them into the gang. I haven’t read or looked at the book so I cannot comment on it.
The clinical trials suffer from serious issues, and if you actually read the papers themselves you will see the researchers spell these out. What I continually find interesting about such papers is how they are used to support viewpoints that the papers themselves do not support. The Donnerstein paper is a good example, and I want to cover it in some depth to really drive this point home. The paper has been interpreted thusly: “Psychologist Edward Donnerstein (University of Wisconsin) found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior. Male viewers tend to be more aggressive towards women, less responsive to pain and suffering of rape victims, and more willing to accept various myths about rape.”
The paper in question formed part of the data the Meese report was based upon, and has been cited to support the viewpoint that pornography should be restricted ever since. The funny thing is that the author of the paper himself doesn’t see it that way. From ‘Pornography and sexual representation: a reference guide, Volume 3’ http://books.google.ie/books?id=Opv9nz2M5c0C&pg=PA994 :
“Understandably frustrated at the confusion, Mike Allen, Tara Emmers, Lisa Gebhardt, and Mary A. Giery adopted a “meta-analysis” of more than 1,000 experimental and nonexperimental studies in “Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths.” They concluded that such an evaluation gave a slight edge to studies that indicated a relationship between exposure and the acceptance of rape myths. Since the studies they tabulated included many of questionable validity, ludicrous design, bizarre definitions, and runaway variables, however, the result is reminiscent of stories in which instructors weigh term papers in order to give an “A” to the heaviest. In any case, the ambiguity of so many studies has led psychologists Daniel Linz and Edward Donnerstein, whose research is most often advanced as demonstrating a connection between pornography and violence, explicitly to reject te inferences that many critics draw from the vast number of studies. Writing in “Research Can Help Us Explain Violence and Pornography,” they instist on three points: (1) “Little proof exists that sexual aggression, as measured in the laboratory, is representative of aggression in actual sexual assaults”; (2) “Antisocial attitudes and callousness toward women are more like to occur following exposure to violent materials, regardless of whether they are also obscene”; and (3) “No scientifically reutable table data exist that indicate a pornography-violence connection in seriel murders”. Daniel Goleman’s “Researchers Dispute Pornography Report on Its Use of Data” includes complaints by Donnerstein and others that their findings have been distorted to support the attorney general’s report attributing a causality to pornography that is not borne out by the studies or, for that matter, by any clear evidence. Indeed, in his testimony before the Meese Commission, Donnerstein said flatly that not reputable researchers had linked ordinary hard-core films, that is, those primarily concerned with depicting sexual intercourse, with violent behavioural effects. According to Robert Scheer’s report on the commission’s deliberations, “Ed Meese’s Dirty Pictures,” the statement caused visible consternation among commissioners hoping for evidence that evil could be traced to representations of sex alone.”
Donnerstein later wrote, along with Linz and Penrod, that “it seems to us that the legal recommendations made by the commission for strengthening obscenity laws do not follow from the data” in their paper ‘The question of pornography: Research findings and policy implications’, 1987.
I hope at this point, by using this paper as an illustration, that the clinical experiments either don’t show what they are cited as evidence for or are not a good representation of reality. It does beg the question – if the methodology of clinical trials has these issues, do we have an alternative we can look at? The answer is yes. There are plenty of good papers to look at, but I’m going to quote from ‘The Effects of Pornography: an international perspective’ 1999 which you can access here:
The paper begins by laying out the issues with the clinical experiments much more lucidly and eloquently than, and in much more depth than I ever could. It then proceeds to examine real-world data sets as follows:
The whole paper is well worth reading, and I would encourage those reading this thread to so as you might be surprised at how much the real-world data diverges from the claims regarding the impact of pornography. For now I will just quote the punchline, but I again encourage reading of the whole paper as the data fully supports this conclusion:
- Insulting me is fine.
- Outing my anonymity is not fuckface.
- Research papers using clinical trials are often cited in the pornography debate, but do not support the argumentation that tries to utilise them (with researchers themselves calling bs).
- The real world data that is available seems to support a negative correlation between porn and rape.
There's data showing that pornography decreases the incidence sexual assault. Some feminists are anti-porn activists because porn objectifies women and supports rape culture.
I don't think there is proof either way. Sexual assaults are underreported making all statistics unreliable.
That said, there is no proof porn is good.
Man sees attractive girl. Man’s hormones make the man have a fantasy about fucking the girl. Is this fantasy problem? Does this playing out in a person’s mind make the underlying urges uncontrollable to the point they could act on them?
Girl sees attractive man. Girl’s hormones make the girl have a fantasy about fucking the man. Is this fantasy problem? Does this playing out in a person’s mind make the underlying urges uncontrollable to the point they could act on them?
Should we expunge heterosexual fantasies too since, using your own logic, those fantasies pose a danger?
Firstly, encouraging dialogue to help develop coping skills (which would only be needed in a very small number of cases anyway) was large part of my first post in this thread.
Secondly, can anyone offer any evidence whatsoever that a person’s innate sexual desire can be “treated”? Any evidence whatsoever that isn’t on the same level of credibility of ‘studies’ shown how gays can be treated?
Actually no, what we (or at least me) is talking about is sexual desire. That would be why I employed the phrase “sexual desire”, a very different thing than “rape”. Turning my use of the phrase “sexual desire” into “rape” is a really pathetic strawman tbh.
Take what I wrote and replace all references to attraction to children with the equivalents for heterosexuality, and note how applying the same bogus substitution you have employed here would lead to the conclusion that those with heterosexual desires are rapists.
Let me, yet again, put this in big fucking letters in the naïve hope people get the point (or at least get people to stop with this blatant false equivocation):
Having a desire is not the same as acting on that desire.
Yes, the same arguments. It stems from the idea that gayness is considered wrong, and thus a reason for that wrongness must be found. Childhood trauma is just one of the many reasons trotted out, along with godlessness, “it leads to paedos”, etc.
I get and accept this, but I will need some dox that “a sexual attraction to children” is one of those negative outcomes.
It is at this point that I suspect what the dox say and what you are alleging here start to diverge. These ‘denominators’ can trigger the anti-social behaviour, I agree. But I do not accept that these denominators caused the underlying sexual attraction, and it is this specific point that no supporting research exists afaik. The underlying desire exists, and the ‘denominators’ only contribute to whether that desire is acted upon.
Note that the word ‘desire’ is proving problematic here, and I only use it here to refer to sexual attraction. In the case of a heterosexual rapist the sexual desire and sexual attraction to women existed natural, and the ‘denominators’ only contributed to whether the rapist acted upon the desire and caused harm to others. This is my understanding of the current research, but if you know of research that suggests influence in sexual desire also I would be interested in seeing it.
Another point worth raising here is over the claim “a hugbox where they can give each other validation and encouragement [to rape a kid]”. That didn’t seem to describe the facebook page, and that is by no means what I am supporting or advocating or defending (not that you could tell by the strawmen being throw at me).
I don’t think the issue is one of sexual desire, but rather of self-control. The factors that would lead a person to rape or take advantage of another are of interest. Whether a person is gay, hetero, paedo, neco, gerio, nimpho or whatever is not the issue – the issue is whether a person would act in a manner to cause harm to others, what factors play a role in this and what preventative measures can we, as a society, derive and implement.
Fucking shitty preview fail:
Having a desire is not the same as acting on that desire.
The forum is a anti-pedophile forum so this shouldn't be a surprise.
These people are having fantasies about rape. They are not having fantasies about consensual sex. Sex with children is rape. Pedophile fantasies about sex with children are about rape. Would you support a Facebook page for rapists?
Srsly please recognize sex with children is rape. They cannot consent, they can be manipulated easier than an adult so its easier to prey on them. Boys are usually younger than girl victims. Boy victims suffer more violence than girl victims. Victims of family/ acquaintances suffer less violence because they can be groomed and manipulated into giving the pedophile what s/he wants.
Wow, I really can't believe that ur defending pedophilic desires and fantasies. Also, I said "these urges MAY become uncontrolable and they COULD act on them". Most people won't but some will. Furthermore, comparing men and women who have fantasies about having sex with each other is a horrible analogy to pedophilic fantasies. One is dreaming of consentual sex with another adult, the other is dreaming about sexualy assaulting an innocent child. For you to think that these fantacies are the same is almost as disturbing as u defending these desires.
I don't give a shit.
For a similar reason, I'd ban every ego-shooter and pc game with violence. They produce people like the shrink in Alices restaurant song from Arlo Guthrie.
But seriously: On the one hand I value very high the principle of "first a crime, then reaction of justice system". The pervertion of "preventive action" led to killing of people in my country because of ethnic reasons - "They belong to group xxx, we think xxx might behave badly, so lets kill them beforehand!". For this reason the justice system in my country is very very very cautious not to make such a mistake again.
On the other hand, I know how flexible a human brain is. I think in some cases people are just "in a mood" and some also should say "Well, it's not possible for me to act in a certain way" and accept it. Sounds bad, but in former times, people had a sense and a way to accept things for hemselves without instantly killing themselves. Not easy in a world, where you think you can buy all and have the right to do all. I don't have to offer something to the few cases who really have an orientation towards children from the beginning. Professional treatment by a physician / psych?
Do all heterosexuals who have an attraction to the opposite sex also fantasise about rape too? Is that some secret research no one has heard of or is this just, yet again, the same pathetic strawman that has infected responses to me…?
No, because such a page would presumably be advocating rape. No one has presented any evidence that the facebook page in the OP ever advocated rape or any actions whatsoever towards children – but banging that strawman is just so much easier than proper reasoned argument.
Since you are wilfully refusing to grasp the heterosexual parallel, let’s go with something else – necrophilia. Let’s ask the question “Would you support a Facebook page for necrophiles?”. Would you harp on with the same strawman and claim that such a forum would lead to people fucking corpses?
I already covered that in my first post ITT, but since you seem so intent on hammering a strawman rather than deal with the content of what I write I should not have been surprised that you missed that.
And, yet again, we have the same tired false equivocation. I do not really know how much clearer I can make this over previous attempts, but I’ll give it another go:
‘Having a sexual attraction’ IS NOT THE SAME AS ‘dreaming about rape’
Can you understand the difference between those two concepts? Can you try? Strain your mind just a little?
Ignoring important discussions is, however, rather vital to understanding how aspects within our world really works.
I do not believe, and have never come across any credible research suggesting, that the desires resulting from a person’s hormonal drives can be changed. All that can be done is the teaching of coping mechanisms and the like to help the person never to act on those desires.
It is worth emphasising that out of all the people who have an attraction to children, only a very small minority would ever be at risk of acting on such. The same is true of people with other sexual desires, including heterosexuals. The only difference is that, in the case of children, the target of the affection is off limits (and rightly so).
It's as despicable as it gets that Zuckerberg's Facebook would allow the posting of this filth at all.
Then again, he supports other similarly despicable causes, not to mention the wholesale data-farming that goes on every day at that site.
Anyone have a mirror?
Dead bodies aren't victims.
Having a sexual attraction to children is dreaming about rape. It's rape to have sex with a child.
Pedophilia is not due to hormonal drives. Rape is not due to hormonal drives.
Do you think that sex with children is rape?
Sex with children (humans under 16 or 18 years of age, depending on where you live) is illegal in most countries, excepting Saudi Arabia, et al.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!