BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The pedophile debate (subtopic of little girl model post)

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Spatula Clarke
19:41 / 08.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Laila:
Here we go again


You said it.
 
 
000
19:43 / 08.09.01
quote: by w1rebabyDid you never consider posting a link to the article? That sort of thing comes under the heading of "Wilful Board Vandalism" in my mind.
If you look carefully at the first part you even have the e-mail address from the guy who wrote this article and who investigates for many years this topic, you can even mail him and ask questions if you like. Or do you think this news can be found in mainstream media?
Wilful Board Vandalism, mmmmm… you mean its to much for you to read? People don’t read links completely. And this is some good info to have if you talk about peadophilia and sexual child abuse in general.
 
 
Ganesh
23:09 / 08.09.01
The plughole never lies.
 
 
moriarty
00:35 / 09.09.01
Funny. I've been here a year and I have never actually run across an actual Laila post. Really. I've heard about them, but never actually had the experience.

I feel like I've just seen Bigfoot.
 
 
000
05:38 / 09.09.01
Moriarty, You forgot big mouth.
 
 
Little Miss Anthropy
06:34 / 09.09.01
You know, every time we get this topic, and the Greenland hydra raises its many scabrous heads, one of them (usually Laila) accuses someone else of being a paedophile. And here we have Laila (of course) accusing Rage of being a paedophile (or, at least, of being a sympahiser, which s/he says amounts to the same thing).

Let's review the facts... shitloads of posting by someone relatively obsessed by the topic of paedophilia, to the point where they feel the need to continually post graphic descriptions of child pornography, rape and murder. Someone pointed out that s/he could just post the link, and avoid pasting this disturbing material onto the board. Hir reply? "But people do not read links properly..." So s/he wants everyone to read these detailed accounts of child abuse.

Then there's the continual ranting about killing and mutilating paedophiles, about their 'sickness'. I think it's pretty clear what's going on here.

Laila is clearly a paedophile hirself - fuelled by the SICK desire to STICK THINGS in children. S/he is also clearly a man - how else do you explain the obsession with male paedophiles and male perverted sexual desire? The crazed repetition of the images of intrusion, anal violation, men touching, raping children?

But Laila hates himself. He can't stand the PERVERTED and TWISTED thoughts staining his 'mind', and fantasises about killing and lobotomising himself - of curing himself in the most painful, violent and permanent ways that exist right now.

Laila deserves our pity. Our sympathy. Our support. He's a disgusting sexual pervert, true, filled like the skin of a cess sausage with raw, steaming MIND SEWAGE... but it's not his fault. And he truly wants to change.

Laila, here's your moment of truth. A few images for you. Black & Decker. Power socket. A small 'X' drawn on your forehead, an inch or so above the nose. Close your eyes... I know you'll have the courage to do this. If you're still capable of rational thought afterwards, much less typing, come back and tell us how you feel.
 
 
bio k9
06:34 / 09.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Rage

In the little girl model post, someone mentioned that it was wrong for pedophiles to have a community to share pictures and ideas with like minded individuals.


That was me.

I don't visit the HeadShop or Switchboard that often and I post here/there even less, so, when I saw this topic, I was disappointed that I had missed a thread based on something I posted. After reading all of the posts I have decided to fuck off back to the comics section. Bye.
 
 
000
12:17 / 09.09.01
Bone Machine, Thank you for your hilarious posting.
quote:Let's review the facts... shitloads of posting by someone relatively obsessed by the topic of paedophilia, to the point where they feel the need to continually post graphic descriptions of child pornography, rape and murder.
Bone Machine mmmm.. what sort of person would come up with a name like that, ah yes a man.
The difference between you and me would be, male and female, to me “these graphic descriptions” as you put it are words. Yes these words have a meaning but it takes a man to make them sexual. I am not showing you pictures, I am telling you what happens daily around the world, if you get fantasies while reading these words, its your problem. Men get pictures in their head when they hear or read a word that implies sexual acts.
quote:Laila is clearly a paedophile hirself - fuelled by the SICK desire to STICK THINGS in children. S/he is also clearly a man - how else do you explain the obsession with male paedophiles and male perverted sexual desire? The crazed repetition of the images of intrusion, anal violation, men touching, raping children?
Darling, there are many ways to explain a obsession. And its quit interesting to see what you remember from my posts.

I did not accuse Rage of being a peadophilian, I asked him why he wanted to start a topic about peadophilians. If he did this to advocate childrens safety then why is he talking about how peadophilians feel?
 
 
Ellis
12:59 / 09.09.01
Well I think this thread has gone to shit.

And for the record, you're all paedophiles... Why else would you even post on a thread about them??

 
 
w1rebaby
14:33 / 09.09.01
quote:Wilful Board Vandalism, mmmmm… you mean its to much for you to read? People don’t read links completely.

You think anyone is going to read all that on a board?

And what on earth is a "peadophilian"?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:40 / 09.09.01
I assume it's someone that works at a building where paedophiles are stored and can be loaned out to members of the public who have a valid card. Three weeks, fines is the paedophiles are overdue or not renewed.

I really, really, really wish Laila had seen the Brass Eye Special. That thought will keep me warm tonight.

As for the rest...blah blah... inhuman... blah blah... "Will no-one think of the children..." blah blah... Here comes the Psychic Nonce Patrol!

Keep your jubilee nipples tuned to this channel!
 
 
Spatula Clarke
15:00 / 09.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Laila:
its quit interesting


Yep, it quit being interesting a long time ago.

I'm just hanging around waiting for you to cum in 'Nesh's face.
 
 
Ganesh
15:07 / 09.09.01
Perhaps a 'peadophilian' is a reptilian paedophile?
 
 
w1rebaby
15:20 / 09.09.01
This is going a bit David Icke...
 
 
Ganesh
15:31 / 09.09.01
'going'?!
 
 
autopilot disengaged
16:30 / 09.09.01
ok: this may well be hopeless, but i'm gonna try anyway...

seems this thread has degenerated into a call & response monologue/chorus. and laila, though you're obviously very passionate about this subject, the way in which you've gone about adding to it has virtually smothered any semblance of debate (which is what this is supposed to be) dead.

i think rage introduced this topic because she (and rage is a she) was interested in whether paedophiles could, would or should be condemned for being padophiles - WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. whether the very fact they have these desires in the first place is enough grounds to punish them.

you seem to believe so.

now, as you'll see if you've read the whole thread, i myself have definite reservations about the idea of paedophile picture-swapping and communities. but i don't believe in punishing someone before they've committed a crime. especially by lobotomizing or killing someone. i don't believe in that kind of state-inflicted violence - even if they're found guilty.

it seems to me, in the quest to make sure we don't underestimate the scope and seriousness of paedophilia, you've left the original questions this thread threw up behind. no one has ever argued, in any way, shape or form, that paedophilia is a good thing. casting aspirtions on other posters' motivations is a pretty petty-minded way of scoring points - and one that smacks of a bad politician refusing to listen to what's actually being said.

so: let's get back to an actual exploration of the topic in hand:

rage originally said she believes paedophilia to be a natural sexual orientation, and laila agrees.

is there any evidence for this?
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
16:38 / 09.09.01
Nice try, mate. But, as you might have gathered, we've done this before. Laila doesn't listen to anyone, and accuses anyone who disagrees with him/her of being a paedophile. He/she posts long rants, sometimes taken from other people capable of stringing together a coherent thought, sometimes just his/her own prejudiced and worrying rambling. I believe he/she actually threatened Ganesh physically once, claimed that he/she could go to his home town and locate him from clues on the board or such (is that right? or am I misremembering?). And you can see that (this time in a thread he/she didn't even start) she's fucked this conversation over already.

 
 
w1rebaby
16:42 / 09.09.01
I don't know about evidence that paedophiles are "born not made" - however, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that their early experiences (usually abusive) lead to paedophilia and that it is often impossible for them to change their desires, or for other people to change them. This means that they can't help it any more than if they were born that way. They've not made a "choice" to be paedophiles, though their actions are their own choices (of course this leads to a free-will argument which is probably not the best way to go).

I don't think you can compare paedophilia with homosexuality. Paedophiles AFAIK have almost always been exposed to abuse at a young age. There's no such common experience between homosexual people.

Does it really matter whether someone has a fetish or desire, as long as they don't act on it? We should watch out for people who are dangerous, of course, but the Psychic Nonce Police is not a division I'd support.
 
 
Ganesh
16:53 / 09.09.01
On the subject of psychosurgery, lobotomy (or, more correctly, leucotomy) wouldn't work, anyway. Nowadays, it's used extremely rarely (I haven't seen one in seven years) to treat severe depression, anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorder which has proved resistant to everything else. It does fuck-all to one's memory, and it certainly wouldn't make one 'forget' what one was sexually attracted to.
 
 
bio k9
16:59 / 09.09.01
I know I said I was going to fuck off back to comics but then I realised this has become a comic so I came back.

quote:Originally posted by Jack The Bodiless:
I believe he/she actually threatened Ganesh physically once, claimed that he/she could go to his home town and locate him from clues on the board or such.


Laila, you realise the Ganesh would probably stick his one good tusk right up your ass don't you? You should visit my city instead. 185,000 alcoholics can't be wrong.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Biodegradable K-9 ]
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:04 / 09.09.01
w1re: couldn't agree more. the only reason i raised the question was 'cause, if paedophilia is seen as an inborn thing - an orientation that exists regardless of life experience, it makes 'treatment' problematic. whereas if it is through experience - again through no fault of the child who will grow up to be a paedophile - one imagines it could maybe - hopefully - be adressed.

as for the abused-becomes-abuser thing - is that still commonly accepted? i was under the impression it'd fallen out of favour recently - as a catch-all explanation, at least.

look - we're debating!
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
17:10 / 09.09.01
My god... quick, keep posting before he/she comes back! Ummm... I don't have anything to say except that I usually agree with Ganesh on this subject, so I'll assume he's not going to embarrass me this time by talkin' crazy, and piss off to the pub...
 
 
Ganesh
17:16 / 09.09.01
Sexual abuse in childhood is certainly over-reported amongst convicted sexual abusers but that, in itself, doesn't 'prove' any kind of straightforward causal link. Retrospective claims are unreliable: the best way to research the issue would be through long-term prospective studies ie. following a cohort of abused children as they grow up and comparing with a control group of non-abused kids - all of which is incredibly costly in terms of time and money.

Even if a causal link could be established, implementing a prevention programme would be problematic. Should abused children be monitored in some way just in case they go on to abuse others? Haven't their lives been fucked up enough already without treating them like abusers-in-waiting?

Difficult.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh ]
 
 
bio k9
17:18 / 09.09.01
quote:
look - we're debating!


Debating, schmating. I went all the way home and got my cape, Brain Wave Modifier and Pedophile Detector Goggles, I'll be damned if I let you ruin my comic.

*pOw*

*BiFF!*

*SoCkerOO!!*
 
 
Ganesh
17:23 / 09.09.01
As far as the whole nature/nurture genetic thing goes, this is usually researched via twin studies ie. looking at incidences of twins reared separately where one's been sexually abused in childhood and one hasn't. Unsurprisingly, there are 'ethical difficulties' with this sort of research...
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:37 / 09.09.01
thanx for that, Ganesh.

any ideas on the re-offending rate of paedophiles (at least those we know about)?

i'm assuming things aren't so clear cut as has so far been presented. that some paedophiles also have normal sexual relations with their peers, some have (as far as anyone can see) 'episodes' or single incidents where they abuse and then don't again. etc, etc.

treating paedophiles as nothing more or less than inhuman monsters completely mystifies them, makes any kind of understanding impossible. and that surely can't be good for anybody - or society as a whole.
 
 
Ganesh
17:37 / 09.09.01
The issue of paedophile picture-swapping is a thorny one. Technically, if a child hasn't actually been exploited in the production of such material - and the paedophile doesn't actually act on it in terms of physically assaulting an actual child in real life - then it's hard to argue that harm is being done. However, it's difficult to decide where to draw the line in terms of whether or not a child's being exploited: overt sexual stuff is clearly exploitative, but what about photographing the child naked? When does an 'innocent' holiday snap become paedo-porn? When it's published on the Internet?

To me, the more worrying issue is the possibility of actual paedophile communities forming. The Internet is a double-edged sword with regard to minority groups: however esoteric one's worldview, it's always possible to find others online who'll support and reinforce it. There exist websites for anorexics, self-mutilators, paranoid conspiracists and the suicidal - all basically creating a sense of shared community. 'It's the rest of the world that's wrong, not us.' In the case of paedophilia, I think there's a danger that individuals visiting and contributing to such websites can convince each other that, really, it's okay, that there's no real harm in it - and therefore being more inclined to act on their impulses.

So how does one police the Internet?
 
 
Verbal Kint
17:46 / 09.09.01
If we begin to talk about trying to potentially profile offenders by their childhood we have a really sticky situation on our hands. Beyond that, we are starting to talk Thought Police.

There was a case recently in the US ( and as I don't have the article in front of me, please correct me if you have more accurate information)where a convicted paedophile/pornographer was put on parole on the condition he had no contact with children, and read/viewed no child pornography. He was put under therapy. Shortly after his parole began his journals were confiscated and found to be full of his fantasies about kids. They stuck him back in prison - not for actually DOING anything - but for thinking about it.

As journaling can be part of cognative psychotherapy, this is problematic. Was he journaling to get these impulses out of his system? Or to turn himself on?

Tuff one.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Verbal Kint ]
 
 
autopilot disengaged
17:47 / 09.09.01
now this is more like it.

this is debatin'.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: autopilot disengaged ]
 
 
Ganesh
17:47 / 09.09.01
Autopilot, I've got stats somewhere on the reoffending rate, etc. but can't put my hands on 'em straightaway. As I recall, the question of definition is a whole can of worms in itself: most studies have focussed on convicted sex offenders or repeat sex offenders, but how many of these should be considered to be paedophiles? The commonest abuse situation, for example, is an intra-family male abusing a female child - but the tabloid media tends to concentrate its ire disproportionately on the extra-family repeat offender, the stereotypical 'sex beast' or 'monster', which is, statistically speaking, much, much less common.
 
 
Ganesh
18:12 / 09.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Verbal Kint:
As journaling can be part of cognative psychotherapy, this is problematic. Was he journaling to get these impulses out of his system? Or to turn himself on?


The latter, I'd imagine. Masturbation being pretty much the strongest behaviour reinforcer there is, no cognitive therapist's gonna suggest someone fills an entire notebook with sexual fantasies merely for catharsis...
 
 
w1rebaby
18:15 / 09.09.01
After I posted about "abused becoming the abuser" I realised my error, but then my flatmate wanted to call Spain. Damn. You're all right, of course, it's neither a necessary not a sufficient cause. There is a statistical link AFAIK but then there's a statistical link between being abused and committing crime generally - and nobody suggests we should keep an eye on anyone abused as a child in case they burgle someone... (or do they? probably someone somewhere has suggested precisely that...)

The question of what defines a paedophile as opposed to a sex offender is a good one. I suppose I would define a paedophile as someone solely sexually attracted to pre-pubescents. This would rule out a lot of those who sexually abuse children, since we don't define children as being just those who haven't entered puberty any more, and with good reason.

A sex offender who abused a young girl because she was an easy target, but who personally was attracted to women of different ages, is not a paedophile, would not collect child porn etc but is still just as dangerous.

Is the debate on protecting vulnerable children thus guilty of concentrating too much on just a subset of the possible culprits? I'm going to go out on a limb and say possibly. Certainly, when I've seen things about men who visit child prostitutes in this and other countries, many of them have wives, girlfriends etc of their own age and have no history of abuse.

Unfortunately with little information available about the relative distribution of paedophiles within the population of sex offenders, it's hard to say one way or the other. As far as the stereotype goes, if you have sex with someone underage you are automatically an irredemable nonce fit only to be strung up - whereas a rapist of adults is often seen as someone with normal desires but criminal ways of gratifying them. This doesn't strike me as being a very coherent or useful view. (I'm obviously not trying to excuse either crime, but misunderstanding the situation doesn't help anyone.)

...I'm rambling here so I'll stop for the moment.
 
 
000
18:28 / 09.09.01
PE-ADO-PHILIAN MAN-LOVE-CHILD or shortly childlover.
Seriously this is what its suppose to mean according to old documents, the link has been taken out of the air in the beginning of the year, so I can not give you the document.But it was originally in old Latin.
 
 
Ganesh
18:35 / 09.09.01
Defining a 'paedophile' is certainly problematic. Most of us, I suspect, are thinking specifically of the 'primary' or 'exclusive' paedophile, the individual who is not merely 'conditionally dangerous' (ie. when an opportunity presents itself) but seeks out and actively creates opportunities. These individuals constitute a small but frightening subgroup of the total number of child sex abusers; I think we're right to consider them a huge problem for society, but wrong to focus quite as narrowly upon their offending. In a way, it's analogous to the media portrayal of murderers: domestic murder by one's spouse is by far the commonest type within our society, but the much rarer serial murderer gets all the limelight...

Compiling statistics on the incidence of such 'exclusive paedophiles' within the population of child sex offenders is naturally fraught with difficulty. It was traditional to distinguish between extra-familial ('paedophilic') and intra-familial ('incestuous') offenders but a 1988 study found that half of the incestuous fathers had also molested female children outside the family.

So, given that the definition of a 'paedophile' (as opposed to a child sex abuser) seems to rest on inner drives and fantasies rather than outward appearance, situation or behaviour, it's virtually impossible to predict dangerousness other than by past (repeat) offending - and, in the absence of such offending, it's hard to justify imprisonment before a crime is actually committed.
 
 
000
19:50 / 09.09.01
quote: by autopilot disengaged ok: this may well be hopeless, but i'm gonna try anyway...
No its not hopeless and thank you for trying.BRAVO!
Rage I apologize for the rants, but I find the articles very important, see being abused as a child does not make a person a peadophilian. What ever we do out of our own free will does not come from abuse, abuse is force not free will. I know many who have been sexually abused as a child and believe me when I say they are not peadophilians, if any they would kill them.

quote: by autopilot disengaged but i don't believe in punishing someone before they've committed a crime. especially by lobotomizing or killing someone. i don't believe in that kind of state-inflicted violence - even if they're found guilty.
So who then is guilty and should be punished for the child porn photos? The producer does not produce unless there is a demand. He who demands states his wishes and the producer follows up. The producer gets in a order for a toddlers snuff movie, he wants cash first and mostly the indentity of the client before he follows up and orders a toddler, the toddler is delivered, the movie made and shipped.
Who should we punish, I ask you?
quote: by autopilot disengagedcasting aspirtions on other posters' motivations is a pretty petty-minded way of scoring points
You mean;
quote: by Laila 1; Why did you start this tread for real? You said “I've been wanting to have this debate for a while, actually.” Why?
And
2; You are advocating in the weirdest way the safety of peadophilians, you are concerned about the well being of peadophilians hardly mentioning the children who suffer tremendously every day until they are to old or until they are dead.

3; Who the fuck cares about how alienated peadophilians feel? Except peadophilians .

I did not say anything negative about her motivations, that is why I asked her why did she wanted to start this debate, for real?
And when I read this;
quote:Pedophiles need their community just like we do.
And this;
Let the pedophiles swap away. They themselves (the picture swapers) are not hurting anyone.
And this;
Let them have their pictures. Let them have an underground network of sexual desire and community on the internet. What ELSE do they have, but society telling them that they are sick perverts? Society from the right and middle and the left. Do you know how ALIENATED they must feel?
The pictures exist. That's a fact. Let the pedophiles swap away. They themselves (the picture swapper

You get this from me;
You are advocating in the weirdest way the safety of peadophilians, you are concerned about the well being of peadophilians hardly mentioning the children who suffer tremendously every day until they are to old or until they are dead.
quote: by autopilot disengagedrage originally said she believes paedophilia to be a natural sexual orientation, and laila agrees.
So fresh start, lets take it from here. Although I am not of the prozac kind, and the isue peadophili is way more absurd and sadder then you guys realize, and as such can and will my words be harsh at times, but its never personal.
quote:by autopilot disengagedis there any evidence for this?
There could be, if we would be allowed to do research in to the gene pools of convicted peadophilians, just as we can do research to be able to discover the gene that shows us if you are gay or not, or if you will have a certain disorder or disease. Remember we can find killers and rapist trough their DNA. Needless to say that we are not allowed.
But remember that you take the highest risks if you fuck little children may this be trough incest(( check the book from actress Ann Heche called “Call Me Crazy” and read and look at the pictures of her family, read how secretive they lived and above all look and read how normal and happy family they portrayed to the outside, now let alone to see who is a peadophilian you can only detect these people if you know their ways)) or as a peadophilian.
Hardly anybody would take such risks just to try something new. There is a reason why politicians or doctors or well known business men commit suicide when they are caught. So its not the little fish you need to catch if you want to erase the problem. Its just like with drugs you need to get to the producers, they have the power and the money to buy their safety trough the maze of the law. And with the paedophiles you need to get to the men in charge, they who make the law ( who needs laws and regulations? Not the people, no he who has something to hide he who wants to be able to do that what is forbidden by the laws of the Natural) they who rule our planet, you need to get to the men in politics and the big companies. Why do you think its necessary to have rulers? Is it because the rulers are there to keep us in control for our own safety? Or is it because they want to be able to do that what they want to do, think of it why do you want to be rich? Isn’t it to be able to be free? And doesn’t freedom stand for doing that what pleases you?
quote: and one that smacks of a bad politician refusing to listen to what's actually being said.
You have no idea, but thank you for this compliment.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply