GirlChat #354891

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Well..

Posted by Demosthenes on Thursday, May 25 2006 at 6:21:37PM
In reply to Angry Momma creates Pedophile Blogger webring! posted by ILGO on Thursday, May 25 2006 at 03:24:33AM

Since she has changed her tune and opened herself up to discussion like a reasonable person, I have sent her another comment. I suppose that we shall have to wait and see if she allows it. Just in case she decides that this comment is also not one which she wishes to allow (though this time it would have to be due to her lack of desire to defent her position or listen to our side after all), I shall give it here:

Well, I'm glad to see that you are finally open to reasonable discussion. My previous comment, which I noted (understandably, by the way) that you disallowed, may not have been exactly friendly, but it was necessary. Most of my Brothers and Sisters are pacifists, while a few of us are varying degrees of militants; I happen to be a shock trooper style militant. I freely admit it and I don't apologize for it, but I do regret the necessity. I would much prefer that my particular brand of counter-offense was not needed.

You have gained a great deal of respect from us by opening yourself up to logicical discussion. At first I wasn't certain that you would be capable of it, but I am pleased to have been mistaken. I will do as my brethren have done and attempt to assist you in gaining a better understanding of the truth, and the opinions.

I suppose that the best way to do this is to start from the beginning and work our way through.

However, I've recently become aware of a new class of pedophiles who are sexually attracted to infants. Babies!!! It makes me sick to my stomach to think that there are grown men who would become excited to look at these sweet and innocent pictures of my boys.

It's not a particularly new classification, and it is not a classification of pedophiles. It is called nepiophilia and is not the same thing. I may not completely understand the attraction myself, but I see absolutely no reason to be sick to my stomach or hate them for it. My personal experience with nepiophiles is that they do not go out harming infants/toddlers. Which brings us to..

Nepipeo. I just went over and read a bit of his site and quite frankly I do see what all the fuss is about. It's about him being sensationalistic, abrasive, and unapologetic. Of course, he has every right to be these things and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. We (and yes, nepiophiles are included in "we", as are hebephiles, ephebephiles, teleiophiles, and gerontophiles) deal with people like magnolia and you (at least when you first created this blog, though I would certainly consider you far above magnolia at this point) constantly; people who are, incidentally, sensationalistic, abrasive, and unapologetic. Action and reaction, my dear blogger. The more poorly we are treated, the less likely we are to treat you kindly.

Ah yes, Erich. He is a bit of an extremist himself, mostly being so (and anti-American) in what often appear to be misguided hopes of being "accepted" as one of them to gain full assimilation. I haven't gone looking it up, but I don't doubt his accuracy on the numbers. He may be extremist, but he's not a complete fool. Many in that culture marry early. Yes, even marrying a girl at the age of 6 is not unheard of (or, at times, particularly uncommon). I have no doubt that you will find this distasteful, but I urge you to think long and hard before immediately judging another culture.. one that is far older than our own. As is true with most things in life, they are neither completely correct nor completely wrong.

Fourteen year old girls may know the physical risks of having sex but many of them don't realize the emotional price they will pay.

Many do not know, you are absolutely correct. Of course, this is mostly due to the fact that they not only should have had someone in their life from birth that was willing and capable to discuss these matters openly and honestly, but she should have been experiencing them long before this; of course, how far that experience should have gone is completely her decision, but we both know that she was not allowed.

I would offer that the majority of grown women are as unprepared in this respect as said fourteen year old girl. For the very same reasons as the fourteen year old girl, including the fact that they should have had an open and beneficial sexual life from the beginning.

We are all tired of the now-popular faith of the best way to insure a child reaches adulthood with a healthy attitude and knowledge toward sexuality being to deny them any access knowledge or experience of sex. Any person capable of logic and reasoning would see the inherent flaw in this. As such, one must wonder why it is held on to so strongly.

The pedophiles want society to recognize that there is a difference between a child LOVER and a child MOLESTER. One only thinks about having sex with a child, the other actually does it. [They prefer the term "child lover" because it doesn't sound nearly as evil but I think it is evil so I'm calling them pedophiles.]

We do indeed demand that society recognize such a difference. While you are free to think as you will, evil by definition requires an intent to do harm. As it is highly uncommon for a pedophile (and virtually nonexistant for a child lover) to ever have this intent, it is impossible for it to be evil. Many try to argue that they can not think of any reason for it other than an intent to do harm, but really, all that is told by this is that the person saying it can only conceive of intent to do harm. It does not speak for anyone but the speaker. Likewise, it is inaccurate to say that no pedophiles do have sex with children, though sex is a rather ambiguous term here. Sex can be a caress, an explorative touch, oral stimulation, or actual penetrative sex. You will find that the majority of pedophiles stop short of penetrative sex, as it would often cause physical harm to their loved one and they would not risk that.

About 10% of sex offenses involving children are committed by pedophiles.'
- Lanning, FBI, 2001

"The most striking finding was that virtually none of the incest offenders showed sexual preferences for children."
- Correctioinal Services Canada, "Research on Sex Offenders - What do we know?"


The numbers speak for themselves. You have no more pedophiles molesting or raping children than you have heterosexual males raping women. In fact, the majority of adult-oriented heterosexual males that rape target children.. which tends to lean the numbers in favor of the pedophiles even more.

As for the Age of Consent laws, you are absolutely correct that we want them gone. It has very little to do with the legalization of the complete expression of our love toward those that we love, however. The Age of Consent laws not only do absolutely nothing to protect children, they are used regularly to harm them. Take the case of a 13 year old mother imprisoned for having sex with her 12 year old boyfriend. Take the case of the 11 year old girl prosecuted, put through "sex treatment", and added to the Sex Offender's Registry for playing "looksie" with step-siblings and simulating sex with clothes on. Take the case the girl in Florida (now 20) held in jail and denied a lawyer or any hope of release without being charged for anything. Her crime? Being 16 years old and being in a relationship with a 22 year old. She got pregnant. Do keep in mind that under Florida law 16 is the Age of Consent and the only stipulation is that the age difference can not be more than 6 years. In essence, they broke no laws and have been punished for over 3 years now. So please, refrain from slanderous comments such as "scores of child lovers suddenly bcomeing child molestors (if the law was changed)".

Mr. Olives has decided to post a link to my blog on one of the pedophile chat sites.

It was more than one chat site. Incidentally, we happen to already be more networked than the hate-crime promoters are. Yes, you were immediately on the business end of counter-action. Again, I regret the need for such things to happen for you to listen to the facts.

I don't UNDERSTAND pedophilia and honestly, I don't know that I want to. Let me rephrase that. I don't understand how or why men/women would be attracted to anyone under the age of 13.

I don't fully understand nepiophilia (primary attraction to toddlers/infants), or teleiophilia (primary attraction to adults) or gerontophilia (primary attraction to much older adults), either.. but that does not make them wrong. In fact, I am glad for teleiophilia (for obvious reasons), as I am sure that I will someday be glad for gerontophilia. Incidentally, I don't really (fully on some, at all on others) understand the plethora of other philias (necro, tears, pain, homosexual, bisexual, plushies, furries, blood, dirt, ad infinitum), but again, it does not make them wrong. As long as it does not cause harm to those involved (unless you're into that, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand), and can be mutually beneficial, there is nothing wrong with it. I do mean empirically or logically identifiable harm, not harm created by social hysteria respondant to a contrived boogey man.

I do find it interesting that you understand attraction to youth from the age of 13. Correct me if I'm wrong, but going from the consistency in wording and literary style, I do believe that you are admitting to hebephilic (attraction to adolescents - or ephebepilic, assuming you prefer males) tendencies. I applaud you for being open enough to admit it, though I could follow the usual hebe/ephebephilic thought pattern that 12 really is quite little difference from 13, and it is rediculous to think that a person is magically superior and able to deal with more (or be more attractive) because they have been around for all of one extra year. Of course, then the same could be said for 11.. I'm sure that you see where this goes.

Society is not comfortable with pedophilia and I don't know that pedophilia will ever be anything other than taboo. If it were suddenly ok to be attracted to children what would the next step be? To allow adults to have sex with children?

Society isn't? Unsurprisngly, if you add up all of the elements of society that fall under hebe/ephebephiles down to nepiophiles, we easily are seen to comprise the majority of society. The difference is that social norm and societal law is dictated by the minority, as has been the case in civilized societies since time immemorium. Incidentally, being a social stigma (taboo, if you prefer) does not effect the "rightness" of anything. Being attracted to children, romantically and sexually, is ok, it is simply stigmatized. As for your last question.. presumably, yes. It was understood as natural in every part of the world throughout history until the victorian era (which I do believe has already been mentioned), and the change of classification to social stigma has not effected it's being natural. As in every relationship, it is about quality and equality (that is, equality in respect and lover; any other equality can exist in no relationship no matter the age, race, religion, etc of the parties).

I am threatend by pedophiles.

You have no reason to be. We are out to hurt neither you nor your children. I would go so far as to guarantee that we would respect your children far more than the vast majority of adult-centric people. We love them, respect them, and are devoted to them. We have a vested interest in their safety and well being.

Again, I understand that there is a difference between child lovers and child molesters but it's a fine line that divides the two. I would not let a child lover around my child because how do I know that he wouldn't cross that line?

I almost addressed these separately, but after thinking on it a moment I realized that it is the same issue. The line between child lover and child molestor is no more fine than the line between adult-oriented heterosexual male and adult-oriented heterosexual male rapist. The reason that you would know that a child lover would not cross the line is the same reason that you tell yourself that the nice "straight" man smiling at your child is not a rapist. The only difference is that in the case of pedophiles, we truly would be much less likely to molest or rape your child.

Here's to mutual respect and understanding,
Demosthenes

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Let's hope that she doesn't let us down.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes





Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?