Defining Paedophilia

YS,

[Actually you were taking pictures of young girls in public,]

Allegedly and not illegal.

[for your sexual gratification]

Not illegal (if it were true). Masturbation is not illegal.

[I can only assume. Porn=Images intended to sexually arouse viewer. Child= MInor under the age of 16
Hence, Child Porn= Images of Children meant to sexually arouse the viewer. ]

See BR.

[So as far as im concerned you made child porn]

Well, you are incorrect.

[you degenerate waste of organic material.]

Why YS?

Nigel.

caroline wrote:Me thinketh he (blueribbon) doth protesteth too much.

CSA victims often make assumptions based on their own experiences, and some of them then use their victim status to justify such stereotyping. This is what you are doing here, either intentionally or unintentionally. No amount of suffering justifies extreme ignorance about paedophilia or accusations or attacks of the kind which you are partaking in here. I think you'll find that virtually anyone except a child molester would protest if you called them a potential child molester. It's an extremely offensive claim.

caroline wrote:Sexual thoughts about children are sexual objectification.

Unless you have had sexual thoughts about children, you are not in a position to make that assertion.

caroline wrote:It is a progressive compulsion. If there were only one child in the entire world who was the subject of sexual thoughts (which leads to physical sexual abuse) [...]

You are clearly basing your argument on your own experiences. A sample size of one "paedophile" cannot be used as evidence to support the claim that sexual thoughts about children inevitably lead to the sexual assault of children.

caroline wrote:Enough with the smoke in mirrors.

The fact that you are incapable of understanding my argument does not mean that I am using smoke and mirrors. It just means that you can only see issues through a very narrow and simplistic lens (which is probably not your fault, but is something that you should recognise).

caroline wrote:IT'S WRONG.

Statements like this indicate that your argument is not rational. It is a moral crusade against offensive thoughts.

caroline wrote:Regardless how passionately blueribbon tries to blur the landscape of peaedophilic devastation

I am not trying to blur anything. You simply cannot understand my argument, because you cannot think outside of the confines of your own experiences.

caroline wrote:with questionable statistics

Those figures are derived from journal articles and police data. I have posted links to my website, which provides citations.

caroline wrote:victims number in the millions

There are no victims of thoughts, only victims of actions. Most child molesters are not paedophiles; in fact, many are previous CSA victims, but that does not make all CSA victims sexual abusers.

caroline wrote:Never, never, never should paedophiles have access to the innocent.

As I have already stated, I have worked (volunteered) around children without trying to act on my feelings. I can control myself around children, and so can many paedophiles.

caroline wrote:The greatest gift you could give your family and friends is to tell them the absolute truth about who you really are.

My parents know that I am a paedophile. You are again making assumptions.

caroline wrote:My concern about paedophiles relates only to how it could be arranged that each and every one, after the first incident, be locked up for the rest of his life.

So you accept that not all paedophiles offend? Maybe you're simply attempting to take your anger out on whoever you can. You are doing what you claim to stand against: attacking the innocent.

Regardless of your intentions, you need to cite your sources. Blind emotion does not negate the need for reason.

Forensic2 wrote:There is no authoritative definition that is clear concise and without problems. All definitions including the above are problematic.

Why do you feel that the ICD-10 definition is problematic? Discourse surrounding paedophilia suggests that the term referred to the sexual preference for young children until at least the beginning of the 20th century. Any other usage of the term is a bastardisation of its original meaning.

Forensic2 wrote:Data from multiple studies of contact offences.

I don't think that studies on contact offenders can be used to make assertions about the general population of non-contact offenders, even if said contact offenders have committed non-contact offences. It is the equivalent of studying depressed patients on prozac to investigate the risk of depressed patients who are not on prozac eventually going on to use prozac. The sample is inherently biased.

Forensic2 wrote:With regard to the study on fantasies, you reported the summary conclusion. However, other studies on fantasies with sexual offenders and those with sexual interest in children, indicate that the type of fantasy and its purpose, is related to offending behaviour . There are different models of fantasies and different fantasies increase the risk of acting out that fantasy.

For example;

a) fantasy as a blueprint for offending; (b) fantasy as a rehearsal for offending; (c) fantasy as a means of sexual arousal; (d) fantasy and offending having common origins; and (e) fantasy enhancement/renewal as a cause of offending.

I also quoted from page 154, not just the summary conclusion. One of the conclusions of the study was that no current model for explaining fantasies and offending explains the results of the study. Unfortunately, the study did not include a non-offender group, however it is reasonable to assume that if high levels of fantasy do not increase the risk of a non-contact offender committing a contact offence, it is unlikely that high levels of fantasy will increase the risk of a non-offender committing a contact offence. The risk of a non-offender committing a non-contact offence cannot be ascertained from those results, however one can (tentatively) assume that the higher the level of fantasy, the lower the risk of a non-offender committing a non-contact offence.

Forensic2 wrote:Early intervention before an escalation of risk is the best way.

Are you referring to non-offenders or non-contact offenders? In the case of non-offenders, I suspect that the psychological effects of therapy designed for paedophiles may in fact encourage the personality characteristics which you cite as risk factors to the point that the non-offender may become a risk. I know from private discussions with paedophilic sex offenders (non-contact and contact) that therapy has fostered those personality traits, albeit unintentionally.

Well, you are incorrect.

*sigh* Its impossible for the idea I expressed to be incorrect. To be incorrect would mean that I do not consider what you did was wrong. Please read the post before you respond to it.

YS,

[I provided disproves your claim that CSA does not cause damage to a child. ]

I have the paper ... had it since publication.

Now, find the part which contradicts what I said and post it please.

Not what you think I said.

[You will claim that this damage is installed by society but you are wrong.]

It is as valid as any other claim, from the information available.

[If this is true than you acknowledge that all of our thoughts and emotions are by products of the society we live in, meaning your pedophilia is not natural, but instead a deviation from the norm because of underlying psychological problems.]

You study logic?

Seems not.

We are a combination of nurture and nature.

Being a MAA quite natural, legal and widespread.

Nigel.

YS,

No ... it was just incorrect, technically.

You like Slipknot?

Nigel.

WM_Critest wrote:YS,

No ... it was just incorrect, technically.

You like Slipknot?

Nigel.

No sir, ill take my Beatles and Tom Petty any day of the week before I listen to that new age rock.

You know their really is no such thing as natural. It is a word without true meaning if you think about it. So claiming pedophilia is natural is total bs.
Think about it; a tree is supposed to be natural, but a nuclear bomb is not? A nuke is made of materials found in nature, and was made by a person who had a brain which was composed of material found it nature. So what does natural mean?

YS,

[You know their really is no such thing as natural. It is a word without true meaning if you think about it.]

Did you study science?

Nature is all around you and we are part of Nature.

I cannot say that being a MAA is normal, unless you decide on an AoA for me to comment on.

However, being abnormal is what makes us all what we are.

[So claiming pedophilia is natural is total bs.]

See above.

[Think about it; a tree is supposed to be natural, but a nuclear bomb is not? A nuke is made of materials found in nature, and was made by a person who had a brain which was composed of material found it nature. So what does natural mean?]

You are making the distinction, not I.

However, I am sure that you are aware that there are the 'Natural Sciences' and the 'Social Sciences' (the latter, just as one example).

So some people do make a distinction; you may ponder on why.

Nigel.

Haha You know why I hate you so much? You are like a hideous parody of myself, a walking breathing reminder of what I could become if I were ever to embrace the lies that you horde around yourself. No, I don't let my feelings for children affect me, because I know the thought itself is as bad as the act.
Please see what you are saying. We could argue until the end of time but it would never change either of our minds.
Children are the only thing left in this world which I can take solace. Among all the evil and sick beings inhabiting this rock they are the only true innocent ones. Why must try and take this from me? Are your cravings for sex so great that you would take what little innocence the world has left and corrupt it?

BLueRibbon wrote:The fact that WM has convictions for downloading indecent images (which does not have the same definition as child pornography) does not affect the quality of his arguments. Character assassination is typically used by people who do not have a strong argument.

He assassinated his own character.

YS,

[Haha You know why I hate you so much?]

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

[You are like a hideous parody of myself, a walking breathing reminder of what I could become if I were ever to embrace the lies that you horde around yourself.]

Good luck with that.

[No, I don't let my feelings for children affect me, because I know the thought itself is as bad as the act.]

You are entitled to think what you like, however incorrect it may be, at times.

[Please see what you are saying.]

I generally do when I type - or I try

[We could argue until the end of time but it would never change either of our minds.]

Then you have a closed mind ... very poor at 17, but, then, you think you know a lot about a lot, when you hardly know anything, yet.

[Children are the only thing left in this world which I can take solace.]

Easy now - us too.

[Among all the evil and sick beings inhabiting this rock they are the only true innocent ones.]

There is no good or evil, no right or wrong ... only what is acceptable or unacceptable, at a given time and place.

Children become 'guilty' at 18, yes?

[Why must try and take this from me?]

I am not ... believe what you will.

[Are your cravings for sex so great that you would take what little innocence the world has left and corrupt it?]

Clearly not.

Nigel.