Question for pedophiles

Huh, surprised I missed this thread until now.

Anyway, I do have more than occasional sadistic fantasies. I've done a good deal of introspection, and figured out some of the patterns.

The first is that I have to be in a very specific, and specifically very good mood before I can get any real enjoyment out of sexual fantasies involving hurting or humiliating little girls. If my mood isn't quite right for it, a sadistic fantasy will tend basically get me nowhere and end up leaving me drained and in a worse mood. I tend to think of it in terms of needing my ego to be in a really good place before the fantasized rejection that is a rape fantasy stings less than the enjoyment I might get out of the domination. Whereas I'm always up for a happy, consensual fantasy. Fantasies involving consensual S&M are usually somewhere in between, since they don't sting my ego, but do require more effort imagining the setup.

The second pattern relates to the content. Regardless of my mood, I never like abusive fantasies that involve breaking the skin, even when things get to the point of murder and necrophilia. I enjoy humiliation and psychological abuse fantasies much more than I do physical abuse, and rape by deception fantasies more than forcible rape ones. When I am in the mood for physical brutality in my fantasies, I tend to limit it to beatings, bruises, and the occasional knocked out tooth or broken arm, with strangulation ending up in there somewhere, but never stabbings, burnings, or flayings.

No I have never gotten any enjoyment out of the idea of hurting children. I find the thought of it to be really disturbing and angering (not judging). I'd rather be the one to come comfort them when they get hurt. I do, however, really enjoy humiliation fantasies, but I'm very picky in that, I have to be the child being humiliated.
But yeah, I'm deffinitely more into the cuddly, affectionate stuff.

Chessplayer wrote:

322 wrote:How would you describe your fantasies, then?

I want hold them, cuddle them, stroke their hair. I want to to tickle them and gently kiss their cheeks. There is more sensual stuff as well, but you'll have to contact me privately so I that I don't trigger anyone.

This pretty much sums it up.

BlackStrat wrote:No I have never gotten any enjoyment out of the idea of hurting children. I find the thought of it to be really disturbing and angering (not judging). I'd rather be the one to come comfort them when they get hurt. I do, however, really enjoy humiliation fantasies, but I'm very picky in that, I have to be the child being humiliated.
But yeah, I'm deffinitely more into the cuddly, affectionate stuff.

Chessplayer wrote:

322 wrote:How would you describe your fantasies, then?

I want hold them, cuddle them, stroke their hair. I want to to tickle them and gently kiss their cheeks. There is more sensual stuff as well, but you'll have to contact me privately so I that I don't trigger anyone.

This pretty much sums it up.

Glad to know I'm not the only one. ^^

Hi, my fantasies involve children hurting children, like child v child fights or bullying of a child by another child.

oo. yeah...that's...actually a really good idea

Chessplayer wrote:

This is one of the dangers of the myth that all sexual contact between children or between adults and children is always - inevitably and indisputably - the ultimate in harmful activity and that they will require a lifetime of therapy. Such black-and-white thinking can lead to people thinking 'well, I've already crossed the line, so what difference does it make?'

While I agree that violent sexual contacts are obviously more damaging than their nonviolent counterparts, part of your post confuses me. Are you implying that non-violent contacts are not inevitably damaging? [Not challenging your beliefs or anything, I'm just curious. ]

Sorry, I seem to have missed this post. Yes, that was what I was implying. Or, at least, I stated not inevitably and indisputably the ultimate in harmful activity. It would be a nonsense to think so; plenty of kids fiddle with one another and don't grow up maladjusted or damaged because of it. If you portray all sexual activity as equally harmful, you not only do a disservice to people who have engaged in sexual activity as kids by encouraging them to consider themselves harmed beyond repair, but you risk people thinking 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. There's a kind of parallel in indecent images: by criminalizing modelling shots (e.g. 12-year-olds wearing bikinis in slightly suggestive poses), you risk guys saying 'well, if I'm already breaking the law I might as well look at stuff involving nudity and masturbation because it's all classed as level one in the SAP scale'. The latter is more likely, as at least in the case of sexual activity you'd have to be pretty heartless (or dumb) to think 'in for a penny, in for a pound', but in terms of viewing images it can be very easy to not see the harm because they're just images on your screen.

ctithe wrote:The latter is more likely, as at least in the case of sexual activity you'd have to be pretty heartless (or dumb) to think 'in for a penny, in for a pound',

Once you buy into the idea of ultimate, inherent, irreversible, unavoidable damage from sexual activity with small children, it's actually really easy to justify doing basically anything you like to a kid who's already engaged in sexual activity before. Perhaps less "in for a penny, in for a pound" and more "the damage has already been done, nothing I do can make it worse".

Oh, thanks for responding guys. I was just curious at the time because at the time I was still under the impression that we weren't allowed to say such things.