Living with Paedophilia

mindyou wrote:
PS : Sadgurl, don't worry. I fully agree with moderators reporting crimes. As I stated before

kind regards

Thank you.

mindyou wrote:Now you can turn it all directions, a child will NEVER ask by itself for sexual intercourse with an adult. No, these stories pedophilians tell among eachother are not a reproduction of reality, but of a certain fantasy-view on a mostly-sad event. Proven by the numerous stories of kids that were victims.

I lend as much credence to stories told by paedophiles of children coming on to them as I do to the notion that no child is sexually interested in an adult "just because". Before I'm going to believe outrageous claims either way, I prefer to see evidence.
Stories of kids that were victims only prove that, sadly, sexual abuse happens. They don't prove that all sexual activity involving children equals abuse. Though, some accounts have it that even experiences not seen as negative at the time, may become traumatic in hindsight.
The only one who I've ever read bothering to give an actual explanation for this, was a paedophile who had had sexual experiences with adults when he was a child. Later on in life, he said, he learned that children are not equipped to properly process the neurotransmitters and hormones released during sexual stimulation and orgasm. According to him, this can lead to effects similar to those of psychoactive drugs.

mindyou wrote:If they like to experiment, they do that most often with peers.

(Where you said "most often" of course you meant "always.")

"Experiment" What is that? I've seen the word used many a time to excuse kids who perform acts among peers which when performed by an adult would have damaged them for life - according to current folklore.

So presumably this "experimentation" is something which only kids can do among themselves. It's apparently not something adults normally do, because "children are not ready for adult sexuality." It's not even sexual activity because "kids are hurt by sexual activity." Which makes me wonder why people bring it up all the time when they're talking about children and sex, without even explaining what they mean by it.

I'd really like to know what "experimentation" is. Just out of curiosity. I don't know very much about sex and I happen to think it's overrated (although maybe I wouldn't be saying that if I'd ever had any.) Still, I'm curious to know what exactly "experimentation" is, and why adults can't do it without wreaking havoc on a child's immortal soul.

mindyou wrote:With years of training, my brains are in a state where they automatically switch into "she doesn't like it"-mode when I look at kids.

How nice. Personally, I never think of sex when I look at kids. I think of kids when I'm in the mood for (solitary) sex. Though not every time, and increasingly less.

Akeraios wrote:Stories of kids that were victims only prove that, sadly, sexual abuse happens. They don't prove that all sexual activity involving children equals abuse. Though, some accounts have it that even experiences not seen as negative at the time, may become traumatic in hindsight.
The only one who I've ever read bothering to give an actual explanation for this, was a paedophile who had had sexual experiences with adults when he was a child. Later on in life, he said, he learned that children are not equipped to properly process the neurotransmitters and hormones released during sexual stimulation and orgasm. According to him, this can lead to effects similar to those of psychoactive drugs.

Now why would you think I would say that a kid is not asking for it?
To be completely correct, before the onset of puberty, kids don't even have the properly hormone levels to experience an orgasm.

According your first quote, it doesn't have to be "traumatic". However, it's the perfect way of "learning" a kid to loose the contact between sex and love.

But most important, I said, and I quote :

a child will NEVER ask by itself for sexual intercourse with an adult.

They don't ask for it, because sex with adults is not a part of their emotional and social comprehension. There are no kids thinking "Oh, that man looks nice, I want him in me". So apart from the discussion about what it means to a kid, it's simply true that they don't ask for it. I'm not talking about young adolescents (minors) here, but even there it's very rare, and mostly some kind of puberty-love fantasy towards younger teachers or other "trusted" people in their environment with good looks.

mindyou wrote:If they like to experiment, they do that most often with peers.

(Where you said "most often" of course you meant "always.")

No, I meant most often.

"Experiment" What is that? I've seen the word used many a time to excuse kids who perform acts among peers which when performed by an adult would have damaged them for life - according to current folklore.

It's the process of discovering your own body and that of others. It's what you see when you work with kids from the age of around 12 : they tend to look at eachother, touch themselves and eachother and, when knowledge about how it works is there, they might have intercourse as well. But every time, it's with peers. I've been a leader in a couple of youth organisations, and at night when checking if everybody sleeps, it turned out more than once that they actually didn't.

So presumably this "experimentation" is something which only kids can do among themselves. It's apparently not something adults normally do, because "children are not ready for adult sexuality."

No, it's because kids don't have the knowledge about their own body and that of others that adults possess. That's why it's called "experimentation". The knowledge of an adult will steer the kid towards the wishes of the adult, instead of leaving it free to explore the whole rim-ram at its own pace.

It's not even sexual activity because "kids are hurt by sexual activity." Which makes me wonder why people bring it up all the time when they're talking about children and sex, without even explaining what they mean by it.

I didn't say kids are hurt by sexual activity. I said they don't ask for it. They might not get hurt physically, but it's a strong experience that is bound to have a serious effect on the emotional and social development of a kid. Which is why one has to be very careful not to disturb that. By leading it into something it doesn't know the full meaning of, and which it can't place correctly. As you said yourself by the way.

mindyou wrote:With years of training, my brains are in a state where they automatically switch into "she doesn't like it"-mode when I look at kids.

How nice. Personally, I never think of sex when I look at kids. I think of kids when I'm in the mood for (solitary) sex. Though not every time, and increasingly less.

Each to his own, I would say. I'm not you I don't think about sex though, I just have that "lower stomach feeling" once in a while. A bodily reaction that is (when one trains on it) easily controlled by the mind. The "she doesn't like it" mode takes away the bodily reaction. I'm not thinking about sex when I see kids. I'm thinking about anything else. I put my sexual focus on adult women.

I'd just like to take a moment and point out that everyone keeps referring to children, even though they are hypothetical, as "it". This may be explained away as a simple oversight, but I think it speaks volumes about the subconscious minds of some of these posters and how they view other human beings.

Please realize that each child you see, meet, or know has a name, a birthday, fears, a favorite toy, and silly quirks. Children are not a means to an end, they are people. They are hes and shes... never, EVER an it.

chickadee wrote:I'd just like to take a moment and point out that everyone keeps referring to children, even though they are hypothetical, as "it". This may be explained away as a simple oversight, but I think it speaks volumes about the subconscious minds of some of these posters and how they view other human beings.

Nope. It's a misunderstanding apparantly from the english rules. I'm a non-native speaker, and "child" is a neuter noun. Thus I refer to it by "it". I just found out in my grammar that it is an expection, and that one should refer to "child" as masculin.

The child touches _his_ ears. _He_ is looking at the sky.

Please realize that each child you see, meet, or know has a name, a birthday, fears, a favorite toy, and silly quirks. Children are not a means to an end, they are people. They are hes and shes... never, EVER an it.

He's according to the grammar. And don't worry, I used to be one myself. I'm quite aware of the fact that kids are human beings.

You shouldn't create problems where there are none. Jumping to conclusions is something not only the bible is warning for...

chickadee wrote:I'd just like to take a moment and point out that everyone keeps referring to children, even though they are hypothetical, as "it". This may be explained away as a simple oversight, but I think it speaks volumes about the subconscious minds of some of these posters and how they view other human beings.

Please realize that each child you see, meet, or know has a name, a birthday, fears, a favorite toy, and silly quirks. Children are not a means to an end, they are people. They are hes and shes... never, EVER an it.

The more I think about this post, the more I realize that's basically the difference between my thought process pre and post-recovery. When I still had this issue, it's not so much that I explicitly though of children as objects, but it was moreso a subconscious inability to view them as people with emotions, dreams, fears, etc. That's why I stress that anybody dealing with this issue talk to a victim of it, and if possible, get them to really open up about it. Because then you see how much something like that can crush a child, which opens your eyes to the emotional aspects of it.

monographic1 wrote:The more I think about this post, the more I realize that's basically the difference between my thought process pre and post-recovery. When I still had this issue, it's not so much that I explicitly though of children as objects, but it was moreso a subconscious inability to view them as people with emotions, dreams, fears, etc. That's why I stress that anybody dealing with this issue talk to a victim of it, and if possible, get them to really open up about it. Because then you see how much something like that can crush a child, which opens your eyes to the emotional aspects of it.

This was interesting to read. When you were still in the middle of this mess, you weren't able to see the children as human, but now you do. I wonder what the relationship between that inability to see children as human and the sexual desires you had actually was.

That wasn't worded very well so I'll try again.

Do you think that the desires caused the view, or do you think the view caused the desires?

That's a good question. I think it's more along the lines of the view opened the door for the desires. Because this is a view I think I've more or less had for every person outside of myself, not just children. It's a general lack of empathy. It might help to understand that I have many schizoid (premorbid) traits as well, though I've never been diagnosed as such. Part of this whole process for me, including the resolving of my issue with pedophilia, has also been about learning to connect with the emotional side of life and not just intellectualizing every thing and everybody, if that makes sense. Which includes allowing myself to have emotions. And those are things I'm still working on.

mindyou, I think I was in a particularly pedantic mood when I wrote my previous post. Either you didn't pick up on that or you wisely chose to ignore it. In either case, my apologies.

mindyou wrote:before the onset of puberty, kids don't even have the properly hormone levels to experience an orgasm.

I've read claims to the contrary, but those were childhood memories told by paedophiles, so I can't say much about the reliability of that information. The encyclopedia of all that's known and true, Wikipedia, says that Kinsey has found that orgasm is possible from the age of five months.

If you consider only prepubescent children, it seems plausible enough to me that they don't sollicit sexual attention from adults, or from anyone really. And moreover, I agree that it seems to be a rare occasion in adolescents. But it does happen, apparently.

mindyou wrote:The knowledge of an adult will steer the kid towards the wishes of the adult, instead of leaving it free to explore the whole rim-ram at its own pace.

Knowledge doesn't steer, people steer. Which implies a choice made by the adult. An adult could just as easily choose to undergo the attention of a child (an adolescent) passively, to let him take the lead.
(To any readers looking at this as an excuse to engage in such activities with minors: Don't. It's against the law. And what do I really know? Maybe it IS intrinsically harmful.)

mindyou wrote:I didn't say kids are hurt by sexual activity.

I'm no stranger to misreading or misinterpreting what other people write, but not in this case. You did say exactly that:

mindyou wrote:Important to do is realizing the previous two points : kids are hurt by sexual activity, and you're attracted to a body more than to a person.

mindyou wrote:They might not get hurt physically, but it's a strong experience that is bound to have a serious effect on the emotional and social development of a kid.

From what I hear and read, sexuality is always "a strong experience that is bound to have a serious effect on the emotional and social development of a kid," whether it's practiced with peers or others.

mindyou wrote:By leading it into something it doesn't know the full meaning of, and which it can't place correctly.

Going into something that you don't know the full meaning of, and which you can't place correctly, isn't that called "discovering"? Also known as "experimentation"?
Anyway, as I said, why would there have to be any leading going on?

mindyou wrote:As you said yourself by the way.

I just mentioned a hypothesis which I heard somewhere. Again, I prefer to see evidence before I adopt a statement as the truth. And I'm really interested in the facts on this issue, so I would like to know for sure. But unfortunately, hypotheses on this subject cannot be verified or falsified without risking harm to children and/or breaking the law.

mindyou wrote:I don't think about sex though, I just have that "lower stomach feeling" once in a while. A bodily reaction that is (when one trains on it) easily controlled by the mind.

Consider my "think of sex" a euphemism for your "lower stomach feeling". I don't have it when I see an attractive kid. Or I should say rarely. But I am interested in that mental control of yours, because I do experience it in all manner of other inconvenient situations. Is it more complicated than the "think of your tax forms or your grandma knitting sweaters or any equally unexciting thing" approach?

mindyou wrote:I put my sexual focus on adult women.

Trying to do the same, but with adult males, as far as fantasies and visual stimuli go. I've gotten mixed results.

chickadee wrote:I'd just like to take a moment and point out that everyone keeps referring to children, even though they are hypothetical, as "it".

That's the kind of thing I would have remembered if I had done it, because it doesn't sound right to me either. But I'm a stickler for proper grammar so if I did refer to a child as "it", I would have done so because I believed it to be grammatically correct.
It would not reflect any kind of view on the nature of children. I'm aware that they are persons. And the bestest kind of persons in existence, by the way.

seanetal wrote:I wonder what the relationship between that inability to see children as human and the sexual desires you had actually was.

I would be surprised if there was a very strong connection, because that would imply that sexual desires are preferentially directed towards non-humans.
Maybe it's true that paedophilia has to do with a false image of "the child", but I don't think I've ever seen children as not human.

If you allow me to conjure up a hypothesis of my own: Maybe it has more to do with not seeing adults as human.
Now that I'm thinking about it... if I put it in other words, not seeing adults as equals, this idea sounds less original than I thought it was. This explanation has always seemed applicable to my personal situation. Though many other paedophiles would protest the notion that they can't relate to adults.

[quote="Akeraios]Still, I'm curious to know what exactly "experimentation" is, and why adults can't do it without wreaking havoc on a child's immortal soul.[/quote]

Sexual experimentation for children is, as has been stated, kids discovering their bodies, learning what sexual arousal means, how they can achieve it. Regular adults don't "experiment" in this manner because they already know this about themselves.

So perhaps the question should be: why can't adults have sexual contact with children without wreaking havoc on a child's immortal soul?

There's heaps of empirical evidence; children who were sexually abused, and by that I mean children who had any sort of sexcual contact with adults, often grow up to be dysfunctional adults, suffering from some of many emotional, psychological or physical disorders. But how does this come about?

Now I'm not sure, I've never done the research, but I think it's the general feeling of being taken advantage of which does the most damage. Contact between a pedophile and a child is an asymmetrical relation. The adult uses the child for his/her sexual gratification. There is no such factor for the child; the child is at a sexually unripe age, and will not receive the same amount of gratification that the adult does.

According to wikipedia there are reported cases in which it appears the sexual contact was consensual. However, we established that the relationship is asymmetrical. The child does not approach the adult for some sexual favor, because the child doesn't feel this need. It is the other way around. The pedophile is attracted to children, therefore the adult initiates the contact. So there is a predatorial relation; The adult starts to rely on a child, or on children, for sexual gratification.

The adult therefore uses the child in a way which is abnormal. Adults are always in a position of power as opposed to a child.
So instead of there being a parent, or a teacher, or a kind uncle or aunt, or a wise grandparent, there is someone who exercises power over the child, and derives pleasure from using the child in a way the child does not understand.

The way in which the child sees the world around him becomes warped. Instead of growing up in a world where he is protected by adults, the child grows up in a world where he feels he can please adults by allowing their genitalia to be fondled. And that is what I believe causes the damage.