A question for boylovers and girl lovers
so...@boom.com
called a pedophile?
If so, can you explain why?
so...@boom.com
>On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:09:56 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
>
>>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>>called a pedophile?
>
>I love all kids, providing they stay the hell away from me. ;)
>
>So long as you don't make any wise-ass cracks about the soap operas I
>watch, I have no problem with what you call me. :)
>
>>If so, can you explain why?
>
>I can only guess as to why you would be offended if you were to be
>called a pedophile for loving your son, sonic.
... but I don't look at my son in a sexual way. I don't get turned on
when he wraps his penis around my big toe after a shower when I'm
drying him. I don't take pictures of him doing a cartwheel or a
somersault when he is nude so I can masturbate to them later. All the
same, I realize he has sexual feelings too. It's just not my job to
cultivate those feelings.
>
>I assume you do love him and I assume you consider him attractive, or
>at the very least, not entirely butt ugly looking.
>
I will say this. He is gorgeous. Honestly, that's why I'm a bit
afraid for him and one of the reasons I watch him like a hawk. But I
don't fantasize about him.
>You may not want to have sexual relations with your son, and that may
>be the implication you think of if someone calls you a pedophile.
Right.
>
>Your name is sonic, mine is Kinda Dumb. You may identify yourself as
>an American mother... I simply indentify myself as kinda dumb.
That's because I don't have anything to hide, even though many here in
particular dismiss me because I am. And I don't consider myself dumb.
Thanks for responding, anyway.
Frank McCoy
>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>called a pedophile?
>
>If so, can you explain why?
Why?
If I am a man or a woman, should it offend me to be called human?
What should offend a person, is to be called something he is not.
Thus, being called any of the three, if true, should not offend.
Being any of the three, and having the word "pedophile" used as a synonym for
"child molester" WOULD be offensive; for the pedophile is then being called
something he is not.
A person who views children (legal definition here: human beings under 18 years
of age) as being sexy beings (a pedophile) is not the same being or definition
as a person who has sexual contact with children (different legal definition
here, depending on the state lived in; usually a human being under 16 years of
age) which is a child-molester.
The two sets intersect; but are not the same or even close to the same.
Sometimes child-molesters are pedophiles; almost as often they are not.
To equate one with the other *is* offensive to anybody in any of the set.
(Yes, even offensive to child-molesters to be confused with what they are not.)
Would it offend you as a male, to be confused with rapists of women?
How about you as a women confused with being a lesbian?
--
_____
/ ' /
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
so...@boom.com
applies to you. (This thread *is* named appropriately enough, I
think.
Quit yer bellyachin' and putting words in others' mouths and heads,
Frankfurter.
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 20:31:08 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
goo...@webtv.net
"The two sets intersect; but are not the same or even close to the same.
Sometimes child-molesters are pedophiles; almost as often they are not."
Sobber is making a very definitive statement here. He is stating as a
fact that:
About 45% of child molesters are NOT pedophiles.
I find that percentage to be awfully high....so McCoy should back his
assertion up with at least some kind of source for it. Especially since
he has a track record of throwing around all kinds of
percentages.....about all kinds of phenomena....that are simply not
true. And often WAY off the mark.
************
Pedophiles Are Child Pornography
Anonymous
> called a pedophile?
No, it does not offend me. I regard myself as a pedophile. I will rarely
identify myself as such, though, because the word is used in different
meanings. I'd rather describe what I mean. To me, a pedophile is anyone
who is sexually attracted to children (which includes both harmless child
lovers and some child molesters). And I am under that definition.
> If so, can you explain why?
I guess some others might feel offended because the word is often used in
another meaning - specifically, the more action-based meaning of 'someone
who has sex with children', but also others - and it is clear that not
every boy-lover or girl-lover would want to be placed under such a definition.
I too would feel offended if someone calls me a pedophile while it is clear
that (s)he is using some clearly negative definition.
--
Nothing is more beautiful than a happy child
Desire, GLDe...@hotmail.com, http://www.fpc.net/pages/desire/
Frank McCoy
>Hm. Wonder why you can't just answer the question. THat is, if it
>applies to you. (This thread *is* named appropriately enough, I
>think.
>
I did ... answer the question.
Maybe you just didn't understand the answer.
>Quit yer bellyachin' and putting words in others' mouths and heads,
>Frankfurter.
>
Put words in whose mouth? I stated what *I* believe, not somebody else.
Besides that, all I did, was ask a question in return.
If my question was unfair, then certainly the first one was far more so.
>
>On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 20:31:08 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>so...@boom.com wrote:
>>
>>>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>>>called a pedophile?
>>>
>>>If so, can you explain why?
>>
>>Why?
>>If I am a man or a woman, should it offend me to be called human?
>>
>>What should offend a person, is to be called something he is not.
>>
>>Thus, being called any of the three, if true, should not offend.
>>Being any of the three, and having the word "pedophile" used as a synonym for
>>"child molester" WOULD be offensive; for the pedophile is then being called
>>something he is not.
>>
>>A person who views children (legal definition here: human beings under 18 years
>>of age) as being sexy beings (a pedophile) is not the same being or definition
>>as a person who has sexual contact with children (different legal definition
>>here, depending on the state lived in; usually a human being under 16 years of
>>age) which is a child-molester.
>>
>>The two sets intersect; but are not the same or even close to the same.
>>Sometimes child-molesters are pedophiles; almost as often they are not.
>>
>>To equate one with the other *is* offensive to anybody in any of the set.
>>(Yes, even offensive to child-molesters to be confused with what they are not.)
>>
>>Would it offend you as a male, to be confused with rapists of women?
>>How about you as a women confused with being a lesbian?
>
--
Frank McCoy
>McCoy wrote:
>"The two sets intersect; but are not the same or even close to the same.
>Sometimes child-molesters are pedophiles; almost as often they are not."
>
>Sobber is making a very definitive statement here. He is stating as a
>fact that:
>
> About 45% of child molesters are NOT pedophiles.
>
>I find that percentage to be awfully high....so McCoy should back his
>assertion up with at least some kind of source for it. Especially since
>he has a track record of throwing around all kinds of
>percentages.....about all kinds of phenomena....that are simply not
>true. And often WAY off the mark.
>
Actually, you've got it wrong:
I believe that closer to 65% if not more are *not* pedophiles (in the normal
view of such) but "molesters of convenience".
And such evidence *has* been posted here several times.
BTW, by *my view of what a pedophile is, then 98% or more *are* pedophiles ...
because to my view the definition of pedophile as one who sees "children" as
being sexy includes well over 98% of the human race ... those *not* seeing
children as sexy being truly sick people.
Thus, almost every healthy, normal, human being fits the legal definition of
pedophile!!!!
And, if you disagree, then look at the legal definition of "children" when it
comes to pornography: "Humans under the age of 18."
Those who don't view any of the people (especially most of the young women)
between the ages of 13 and 18 as sexy, usually are blind or otherwise disabled.
However, that is not those people *normally* label as pedophiles, though it
certainly fits the *legal* description of same. Usually (and incorrectly)
people think of "pedophiles" as people who want to have sex with children (and
here they usually think of "children" as being pre-pubertal ... ignoring
completely the fact that most "molested children" are past puberty.
So, if those definitions apply, it's almost certain that pedophiles (those who
desire sex with pre-pubertal kids) are *not* the majority of those who "molest
children" (have sexual contact with people under the legal age-limit, which is
usually around 16). In fact, I'd hazard a guess that most cases of
"molestation" take place with "children" far too old to interest a pedophile
whose main interest is prepubertal humans.
Add *that* to the documented-elsewhere fact that most cases of "molestation" (no
matter what the age) happen because the child happens to be "convenient", not
picked specifically as a target (yes *some* of those who happen to find them
there *are* pedophiles) and you end up with the almost inescapable conclusion
that far more children are molested by non-pedophiles than by pedophiles.
It (obviously) all depends on how you define "pedophile", as well as how you
define what is a "child", along with what is meant by "molest".
Pick your definition, and you can get anywhere from 0% to 100%.
If you get 100% though, you included 100% of the human race, too.
Most people like goody get *great* pleasure from using one definition for people
who like to look at sexy pictures, and another entirely for different purposes;
making it thus *look* like pedophiles are both uncommon and evil.
But that's not new either.
Changing definitions to suit the spur of the moment is an old tactic for those
who favor oppression of any kind.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:09:56 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
>
>>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>>called a pedophile?
>
>I am a girl-lover. And depending on your implication of the word
>would depend on whether or not I would take offense.
>
>If you mean one who is attracted to little girls, in all
>sorts......including sexually.....no, I would not.
>
>If you mean one who causes harm to little girls by sexually molesting
>them for self gratification...one who sees them as nothing other than
>tools to get off on.......yes, I am offended....because it is a
>description of something I am not......nor will I ever become.....it
>is an insult.
Thanks for answering. If I were to know of you molesting a child or
anything along those lines where a child was injured in any way
(including emotionally) then I would call you a child molester. But
since I know there is a difference, I asked the question, "does it
offend you to be called a pedophile." I didn't ask if it offended you
to be called a child molester. I already know the answer to that
question! :-}
>>If so, can you explain why?
>
>Would you like me to assume that you are a lesbian, or a nymph......or
>a slut...etc......? Simply because of your sexual orientation?
>
>Likewise, assuming I am a child molester simply because I am attracted
>to little girls would offend me in the same manner the above
>accusations would offend you.
Refer to the above. No one in this thread or elsewhere now has
accused you of that for your reasons.
I think it's interesting that you and others (pedophiles, GL, BL,
whatever) automatically "assume" that people are thinking that or are
calling you something you are not just by putting a name on your
"preference." If I were a lesbian, I wouldn't have any problem being
called that. If I were a slut, I would probably take umbrage with
being called that.
What I am saying is, I wonder if it is shameful to be called something
you *are* if it is something that is so misunderstood and so confused.
You (general) almost seem to be adding a disclaimer when admitting it.
It's like telling someone (for lack of a better example) that you are
an alcoholic when you have been sober for a long time. You're still
an alcoholic, but you don't indulge. So you may have to differentiate
between the two, as you have done here and before, in order to gain
more understanding for your situation. Or maybe you just prefer to
keep that private.
Trying to keep the channel for communication open ... I hope you don't
think I am being rude here for asking this.
so...@boom.com
>On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:09:56 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
>
>>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>>called a pedophile?
>>
>>If so, can you explain why?
>
>Whose definition of "pedophile", Sonic ? Goody's ? Yours ? Mine ?
>S.C.'s ?
>
>It makes a difference, doesn't it.
Does the question apply to you?
If so, kindly read the previous posts I have written answering this
question.
Then answer if you care to.
so...@boom.com
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 21:44:22 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
wrote:
>> If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>> called a pedophile?
>
>No, it does not offend me. I regard myself as a pedophile. I will rarely
>identify myself as such, though, because the word is used in different
>meanings. I'd rather describe what I mean. To me, a pedophile is anyone
>who is sexually attracted to children (which includes both harmless child
>lovers and some child molesters). And I am under that definition.
>
>> If so, can you explain why?
>
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>so...@boom.com wrote:
>
>>Hm. Wonder why you can't just answer the question. THat is, if it
>>applies to you. (This thread *is* named appropriately enough, I
>>think.
>>
>I did ... answer the question.
>Maybe you just didn't understand the answer.
>
>>Quit yer bellyachin' and putting words in others' mouths and heads,
>>Frankfurter.
>>
>Put words in whose mouth? I stated what *I* believe, not somebody else.
>Besides that, all I did, was ask a question in return.
>
>If my question was unfair, then certainly the first one was far more so.
<embarrassed chuckle> I wrote that in my bad mood yesterday. I've
had some sleep since then. But I just want to clarify, I wrote the
previous "bellyachin'" in response to how you were saying "would you
be offended if someone called you a lesbian?" and the like. You also
like to say "you think this," and "you assume that." You do that a
lot, Frank. And I got annoyed. Sorry.
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 20:31:08 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>so...@boom.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>>>>called a pedophile?
>>>>
>>>>If so, can you explain why?
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>If I am a man or a woman, should it offend me to be called human?
>>>
>>>What should offend a person, is to be called something he is not.
>>>
>>>Thus, being called any of the three, if true, should not offend.
>>>Being any of the three, and having the word "pedophile" used as a synonym for
>>>"child molester" WOULD be offensive; for the pedophile is then being called
>>>something he is not.
>>>
>>>A person who views children (legal definition here: human beings under 18 years
>>>of age) as being sexy beings (a pedophile) is not the same being or definition
>>>as a person who has sexual contact with children (different legal definition
>>>here, depending on the state lived in; usually a human being under 16 years of
>>>age) which is a child-molester.
>>>
>>>The two sets intersect; but are not the same or even close to the same.
>>>Sometimes child-molesters are pedophiles; almost as often they are not.
>>>
Frank McCoy
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:45:42 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>so...@boom.com wrote:
>>
>>>Hm. Wonder why you can't just answer the question. THat is, if it
>>>applies to you. (This thread *is* named appropriately enough, I
>>>think.
>>>
>>I did ... answer the question.
>>Maybe you just didn't understand the answer.
>>
>>>Quit yer bellyachin' and putting words in others' mouths and heads,
>>>Frankfurter.
>>>
>>Put words in whose mouth? I stated what *I* believe, not somebody else.
>>Besides that, all I did, was ask a question in return.
>>
>>If my question was unfair, then certainly the first one was far more so.
>
><embarrassed chuckle> I wrote that in my bad mood yesterday. I've
>had some sleep since then. But I just want to clarify, I wrote the
>previous "bellyachin'" in response to how you were saying "would you
>be offended if someone called you a lesbian?" and the like. You also
Well, if you were a woman who was *not* a lesbian, then I would *assume* you
would mind being called one. The point I was making, was that most pedophiles
similarly mind being called child-molesters.
The question was raised in a rhetorical manner to *make* you annoyed, in the
same manner anyone else would be annoyed at being unjustly accused. It was
never intended though as an accusation, like so many make the accusation that
all pedophiles are either child-molesters or just potential child-molesters who
haven't had a chance yet to do the dirty deed.
To get back to your original question; since you still seem to be of the opinion
I didn't answer it: It all depends on who says it, and why.
To quote a VERY old western, "Smile when you call me that, partner."
If somebody says it with the implication that I'm a child-abuser, or wanna-be,
then damned straight I get mad! OTOH, if somebody says it with the implication
that he knows I appreciate the beauty (and yes, sexiness) of youth, then (of
course) I don't mind at all.
In that case (as I tried to make clear) why *should* I be mad, if somebody
called me a pedophile, as long as they knew what the term meant; and weren't
indirectly accusing me of being somebody who wants to molest children?
--
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>In that case (as I tried to make clear) why *should* I be mad, if somebody
>called me a pedophile, as long as they knew what the term meant; and weren't
>indirectly accusing me of being somebody who wants to molest children?
Exactly. And I'll tell you why I even asked the question in the first
place. It is because time and again if someone utters the word
"pedophile" here, everyone, especially those to whom it applies, seems
to take offense and start flinging around the "L" word, retainers and
such.
Frank McCoy
Look at such posts.
In almost all such cases, the person using the word pedophile, uses it in a
derogatory manner; saying things like, "And who would listen to an admitted
pedophile?" as if a pedophile was synonymous with child-molester.
In that case, especially if the person has never admitted even pedophilic
leanings (which seemed to be the case in most such instances) then using the
term in that manner *would* be libelous.
Actually, since "common usage" *does* seem to equate being a pedophile with
being a child-molester (since most people don't know the difference) then being
so-accused in public, with no evidence, *IS* libel. And doublely so, if the
person doing the name-calling uses "pedophile" like an epithet. (True in all
the cases I remember where somebody threatened libel suits.)
Get it now?
Now ... what's *your* beef with that?
You can call *me* a pedophile, all you want to ... as long as you make it clear
you mean somebody who sees children as being sexy, not somebody who wants to
molest children. If you make the second assumption from the first truism, then
it becomes a libelous accusation.
I wouldn't advise calling anybody *else* in here a pedophile of course, unless
you had their permission to do so, because with common usage, if you call them
that in public, then people *will* assume the worser meaning, not the proper
one. And especially if that is your intent, then it *is* libelous to do so.
Kinda' reminds me of the politician who said about his opponent, just before the
election, "Why I'll have you know that my opponent is a practicing heterosexual;
and I dare him to deny it!" His opponent lost the election. Seems the
politician knew just how ignorant his constituency was, and how bigoted too.
No matter what the poor guy said in the day before the election in rebuttal, he
couldn't win ... even though the statement could be considered a compliment from
the homophobic side of the issue.
Do you understand yet what I'm getting at?
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>Do you understand yet what I'm getting at?
Yeah. You find children sexy.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>
>Nope, Corp. webtv uses a different firewall, see below.
>
>-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
>Version: 2.6.2
>
>hIwDZ0avBOib4usBBACtdYGW64PLTVNOQ6T8nt9vZebY3Lr2kmZZvRbW7EGzrEqK
>/ZQkKpLkEgYCGjqKvhkS63qgGK630Mkrsh2WGpN5iYpIpsMFi+b0iXn3Tos3MD7w
>0IujRrwSOyVUF5wXOULJbeCfB7Ckm5M9j3nF70bRcj8u+Ev4QTiVfxbc/MlyvYUB
>DAPIYSuM8U7MPQEH/AuAyfKZY+baygqfGej4qiZb5OatlphUU4+7cBpaA6yN71Ek
>p6zN0RMG9f4Xq+LZJbWSQMkYyPtkdyvfXHZEyfRU3J7Q40yrxpBLpjNsz4qUsABo
>eQBQ+HWkdmfBCzAhWm7pZsVT6C5SKkjHDSSMu5IPEtpMtAv5LkI6jzPBFjsinyBA
>Ea1RNSCDQFXMB85GaunNqvLK7PCc9kstw2So6bDmvFVyKByFekOxK0q4tewOIx9K
>4MtmgCjBXZlc+y4ve3FKhYv5d8H/gzsge9D4Psh86iz2ZushnRPIeIuBTPHdPS14
>as14cjbVzfSbuTkJQ92BJZ3FuGGVxyjs9wMIsw6mAAACy/PnOsDA8dSm5ooEVA07
>qIJJ2KDdlnxwFc0fgQyBO86h/XaeryBwcxzRPzAihkqJ9LwTHp+uWT6WeTYV87+C
>VNiNsEPuFWUFPiOiH5IaAlwXMjKZ6HtS25U6BnwXqC0xzVxqZL9jBEhrfdERln0G
>X8jIywkOERAYd7UVeQ8kuuOcDxqiKAmaIrNFZ6ibLa/csHte8EDhQ9aNmNG49tsP
>gKXLVkk8pi7YeQzbvcwMjC1Eaqw/GRNRK/bJo8NdLcBrC5GxI4yx0luMtwEl608F
>LfpXvJZv7vYiAlIe2PZdSAfZLvR8VV/TYfWsZME84Gm6xZ6M2P2/BrIO0P77WHlr
>xeIHNVPAnwVp9QSGQUcC2vFdQQOc3KK4ym+py7lcqZ8/YtpRl4J+foWTjWLfQKtl
>2gDCGWeUZx48nnWoHhHAI86TIN3Nun0Cdmw9LB8y0cSKF0TrhiKz0iLHme4d2TGw
>2lXB9J/eCPza6DvvMMAUQSEoLQy6GKTB7Nax9z4aCPCR0nfVor+Qwce/drbbSRDs
>McDVAt6cI+9iKz9MQHIkkbJumtcH/GYF71Cg4/MQh2QUACMoSmf8IW9kEvwN8rhd
>4HHDsZ6iabrgQiT1XGi2AQyHtOLOL1yjPxcur6/jPOr+CbieD8b7UNyVrj2ij8Qp
>SHkgE4ts1PX/y+BW8BxWLeyrEMXVxAZCxvAZLTD1CehwLMM2abuEpTqy3R8AM/6P
>lOpNj59CNOgKPwJmMUD3sb7eCzCX8+8lshC4UN1ZBb3WV1yOel+R2uippZ7DtpRu
>JrmhQ2mlSmRC1od78fc6U2h0HrN5e9E4olVGzPN8u8EGX+HAtl9+d42tFTJuPzT6
>sOQrfyZFNgPxKt6OtQGHmZTHudcjIMw6y0lrtYOS9YivjiaQDJYn5LylMVqDywlV
>KvEAb6LRiPdCp9baf14zd2xb3t2bnlJECLoAVuY=
>=YudK
>-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
I have a question. Why do you send encrypted messages to a public
newsgroup? If you don't want anyone else to see them, I don't see why
you don't just email them privately. Are you just playing some rude
childish game, in essence, whispering in front of others?
so...@boom.com
>In fact....I've been trying to find out for WEEKS now....how I can
>locate any place on the Net where there are ANY anti-Child Pornography
>pedophiles! And I can't find one place....or ONE GODDAMM F***ING
>PEDOPHILE that is AGAINST CHILD ABUSE PHOTOGRAPHS!!!!
Well, there is a site, (two, actually) where the banner "Pedophiles
Against Child Exploitation" and "Boylovers Against Child Pornography"
are shown, but they connect to nowhere. These two sites are run by a
woman and are for "healing" from sexual addiction with emphasis on
pedophilia. Actually, there is nothing in here that says pedophilia
is wrong or that one has to "heal" from it. It just portrays *on the
surface* that they are against behaviors that are considered
dangerous, one of them being child porn, another being having sexual
relationships with children. There is even a Christian pedophilic
site (no surprise to those here, no doubt). However, when you look
deeper within, there are many posts consisting of giggling and cooing
over children and how sexy they are. Not much at all about
controlling the urges; in fact, encouraging others to let it all hang
out. I also recall one place in particular where some a-hole posted
the URL to a site devoted to recovering sex addict and survivors for
some "great whackoff material." He was referring to stories told by
the victims themselves. Again, I'm sure this comes as no surprise to
the veterans of this ng. It just goes to show you, the norm is not as
rosy as one would want to paint it.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>
>so...@boom.com wrote in message ...
>>On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 18:55:51 GMT, anadv...@large.org
>>I have a question. Why do you send encrypted messages to a public
>>newsgroup?
>
>For the same reason I use a lowered voice in public when discussing
>personal matters.
>
>>If you don't want anyone else to see them, I don't see why
>>you don't just email them privately.
>
>I've been informed that my e-mail address is not working properly at the
>moment. All of the mail addressed to me seems to be returned to sender.
>
>>Are you just playing some rude
>>childish game, in essence, whispering in front of others?
>
>I could politely request that anyone my message was not intended for, not
>read it, but I'm concerned some rude individuals may childishly not honor
>this request.
>
>Forgive me, sonic, but I am having an on going conversation with anadvocate
>of a *very* on topic nature that I would prefer to remain private. I can
>only hope you can ignore my indiscression for the remainder of this post.
>
>If you ever had a discussion with friends or family in a public place that
>you would rather not be over heard, I feel confident you will understand.
>
I just think it's a little rude, particularly when you move onto other
threads like this one. I can sidestep the ones that say ping Kinda,
but I don't have any choice but to open this one since it is the one I
started...
Oh well.
>-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
>hQEMA5FnbJG+RA1VAQf6AkMyJVZU2MliyTEpe4ygmOSD/MmQYokhxRcBDQYCEjnt
>vu6MjRvNGvT/mcEHJgb41uNRbP16b/eC+dxzDb53d9PgS0SZRaTOYkl3XK3LR1JC
>HIkVURHgp8F+wm3OuzlcNEsOEhBYDDg8X/yvyXZt22364beOL32l9gULgzj45lMz
>8+XPQVUPgVwggZPmLUDbajL7IRr5Iy/0C63la/SMo9d0ISyIB+u3aSOMwfGlFE3q
>9rYPqU9MOHIoRnzEjAmtMARjdwWfiPCfmGR5vjf6zjzjPYiUXqr8uyTRqc3M8z2b
>FnHmpjGWQBakSYagMUoLENi/wCXnXIfqQzHXcnOp26RWR23Q0uyM0/fopy3MKx2x
>M6gXYd9dOkSkAz3+DziGyQLnl/PReEciBFbtbyu5YmgKBDcsw3PK4U4Tt2fADbbr
>lwjsjPsQCsWULBScowoJ4OWx2GgHF9E=
>=k3W3
>-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
>
>
The Viewer
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 08:12:05 GMT, scre...@the.night (Spirit ChaserŠ)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:09:56 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
>>
>>>If you are a boy lover or a girl lover, does it offend you to be
>>>called a pedophile?
>>
>>I am a girl-lover. And depending on your implication of the word
>>would depend on whether or not I would take offense.
>>
>>If you mean one who is attracted to little girls, in all
>>sorts......including sexually.....no, I would not.
>>
>>If you mean one who causes harm to little girls by sexually molesting
>>them for self gratification...one who sees them as nothing other than
>>tools to get off on.......yes, I am offended....because it is a
>>description of something I am not......nor will I ever become.....it
>>is an insult.
>
>Thanks for answering. If I were to know of you molesting a child or
>anything along those lines where a child was injured in any way
>(including emotionally) then I would call you a child molester. But
>since I know there is a difference, I asked the question, "does it
>offend you to be called a pedophile." I didn't ask if it offended you
>to be called a child molester. I already know the answer to that
>question! :-}
>
>>>If so, can you explain why?
>
Because in real life it can get you maimed, killed, cost you your
job, and your family, even though you have never acted on your
attraction.
>
>>Would you like me to assume that you are a lesbian, or a nymph......or
>>a slut...etc......? Simply because of your sexual orientation?
>>
>>Likewise, assuming I am a child molester simply because I am attracted
>>to little girls would offend me in the same manner the above
>>accusations would offend you.
>
>Refer to the above. No one in this thread or elsewhere now has
>accused you of that for your reasons.
>
>I think it's interesting that you and others (pedophiles, GL, BL,
>whatever) automatically "assume" that people are thinking that or are
>calling you something you are not just by putting a name on your
>"preference." If I were a lesbian, I wouldn't have any problem being
>called that. If I were a slut, I would probably take umbrage with
>being called that.
>
read good 22's tag lines, Pedophiles like CP, pedophiles like to
see children molested, etc. etc. etc._____ .
>What I am saying is, I wonder if it is shameful to be called something
>you *are* if it is something that is so misunderstood and so confused.
>You (general) almost seem to be adding a disclaimer when admitting it.
>It's like telling someone (for lack of a better example) that you are
>an alcoholic when you have been sober for a long time. You're still
>an alcoholic, but you don't indulge. So you may have to differentiate
>between the two, as you have done here and before, in order to gain
>more understanding for your situation. Or maybe you just prefer to
>keep that private.
>
>Trying to keep the channel for communication open ... I hope you don't
>think I am being rude here for asking this.
>
--
I am the looker in his nature
I have always thought that all men should be free;
but if any should be slaves, it should be first those
who desire it for themselves, and secondly those
who desire it for others. Whenever I hear anyone
arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it
tried on him personally.
Abraham Lincoln
Timothy Murphy
<so...@boom.com> wrote in message
news:mjAkOPTHOZBkhr...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 08:12:05 GMT, scre...@the.night (Spirit ChaserŠ)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:09:56 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
> >
>
> I think it's interesting that you and others (pedophiles, GL, BL,
> whatever) automatically "assume" that people are thinking that or are
> calling you something you are not just by putting a name on your
> "preference." If I were a lesbian, I wouldn't have any problem being
> called that. If I were a slut, I would probably take umbrage with
> being called that.
>
Perhaps that has to do with the number of people who DO use the word
"pedophile" interchangably with the term "child molester". If you live with
that prejudice every day then you would tend to get somewhat defensive
wouldn't you?
> What I am saying is, I wonder if it is shameful to be called something
> you *are* if it is something that is so misunderstood and so confused.
Don't mistake being defensive and trying to determine exactly what a speaker
means when a word that fanatics have abused to the point of confusion is
directed towards them as meaning they are ashamed. The shame lies on the
people who have misused a word in an attempt to brand an entire group with
the crimes of a small percentage of it's members.
I'm not a pedophile, and the actions of certain pedophobes have caused me to
be offended by the misuse of the word.
--
Timothy I. Murphy (T. I. M. don't ya just love it)
And now for the quote of the day:
TANSTAAFL- Robert A. Heinlein
goo...@webtv.net
> "I wrote that in my bad mood yesterday. I've had some sleep since
then. But I just want to clarify, I wrote the previous "bellyachin'" in
response to how you were saying "would you be offended if someone called
you a lesbian?" and the like. You also like to say "you think this," and
"you assume that." You do that a lot, Frank. And I got annoyed. Sorry."<
Pedophiles are always saying "you think this", and "you assume that", to
non-pedophiles. And they do it very well.
It's called being "bigoted".
*************
Pedophiles Enjoy Child Pornography
goo...@webtv.net
equivalent to NAMBLA....called "Martijn"-something, over there.
I notice that LAurence is often at "boy-lover" groups too. So I was
wondering if LAurence was a member of NAMBLA.
Are you, LAurence?
I was just curious. And there's nothing illegal in that, of course.
**********
Pedophiles Enjoy Child Pornography
goo...@webtv.net
>"Would it offend you as a male, to be confused with rapists of women?
How about you as a women confused with being a lesbian?"<
Any man who enjoyed viewing photos of the real-life rape of women (let
alone...er... "collecting" same)....shouldn't be surprised if folks
thought of him as a rapist. Or at the VERY LEAST...a "potential
rapist".
And women obsessed with viewing/collecting lesbian-oriented
pornography.....could be assumed to be lesbians. Or to have strong
tendencies in that direction. At the very least.
Use your head, McCoy.....
What's illogical about that?
goo...@webtv.net
Do you understand yet what I'm getting at?
If he means do we understand he can ramble on and on about a whole lot
of silliness, then....
Yeah.
We understand.
**********
Pedophiles Are Child Pornography
so...@boom.com
<timothy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
><so...@boom.com> wrote in message
>news:mjAkOPTHOZBkhr...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 08:12:05 GMT, scre...@the.night (Spirit Chaser©)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:09:56 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
>> >
>>
>> I think it's interesting that you and others (pedophiles, GL, BL,
>> whatever) automatically "assume" that people are thinking that or are
>> calling you something you are not just by putting a name on your
>> "preference." If I were a lesbian, I wouldn't have any problem being
>> called that. If I were a slut, I would probably take umbrage with
>> being called that.
>>
>
>Perhaps that has to do with the number of people who DO use the word
>"pedophile" interchangably with the term "child molester". If you live with
>that prejudice every day then you would tend to get somewhat defensive
>wouldn't you?
>
>> What I am saying is, I wonder if it is shameful to be called something
>> you *are* if it is something that is so misunderstood and so confused.
>
>Don't mistake being defensive and trying to determine exactly what a speaker
>means when a word that fanatics have abused to the point of confusion is
>directed towards them as meaning they are ashamed. The shame lies on the
>people who have misused a word in an attempt to brand an entire group with
>the crimes of a small percentage of it's members.
>
>I'm not a pedophile, and the actions of certain pedophobes have caused me to
>be offended by the misuse of the word.
Pedophobe! Ooo. New word to add to my repertoire. Thanks!
Chucky
wrote
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 19:15:57 -0600, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Do you understand yet what I'm getting at?
>
By, George, I think she's got it!
--
Chucky
goo...@webtv.net
> "I don't assume that people think I am an abuser when I call myself a
pedo......I do when the term is used in conjunction with child abuse.
And that's not what it is. I am trying to turn the definition around for
as many people as I can, to recognize a distinction between the two." <
But Spirit Chaser.....you won't address CP, when you try to get people
to recognize the distinction. And Child Pornography is the very next
subject that crosses a person's mind when they hear the word
"pedophile"....once child molestation is dispensed with. (Many people
may even think of it at the same time...or even FIRST.)
Don't you remember Spirit Chaser? That was the FIRST QUESTION you were
asked here last year....when you "came out" in search of
"understanding".
And it wasn't from me...because I was only lurking here when it
happened.
***********
Yet, for all your whiney hand-wringing, and "fighting 'til the
death".....all very DRAMATIC, of course...you still totally ignore it!
And it's now a YEAR LATER.
But do what you want. It won't affect my life at all.
***********
Pedophiles Are Child Pornography
Child Pornography Is Child Abuse
goo...@webtv.net
>"The shame lies on the people who have misused a word in an attempt to
brand an entire group with the crimes of a small percentage of it's
members."<
Well then, there's no shame on me. I haven't branded an entire group
for the CP Crimes of a small group of it's members.
In fact....I've been trying to find out for WEEKS now....how I can
locate any place on the Net where there are ANY anti-Child Pornography
pedophiles! And I can't find one place....or ONE GODDAMM F***ING
PEDOPHILE that is AGAINST CHILD ABUSE PHOTOGRAPHS!!!!
Sorry.
(You know how I get.)
***************
Pedophiles 'Enjoy' Child Abuse Photographs.
Frank McCoy
You're showing up his lies in the same post.
The rest of us all have to use two or more of goody's posts to show where he
says one thing one time, then denies saying it in another.
That's just not fair doing it all from one post, you know.
It makes the rest of us look bad.
Besides, isn't that cheating?
You're not supposed to notice inconsistencies in the same post.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>Try PACE dimwit, Pedophiles Against Child Exploitation.
Spirit,
Can you post the URL for this group? I've looked all over for it.
Thanks.
goo...@webtv.net
to "abuse-ophobes", for the most part.
Abuse-ophobes object to the abuse of people. Anybody. For any reason.
I'm just as much as an abuse-ophobe when it comes to adults....as I am
when it comes to children. And not only sexual abuse. Oh, no, no,
NO!!! Just look up my post on "True Love" and you will see that I can
get pretty upset about non-sexual child abuse, too. (Also non-sexual
abuse of adults....but nobody's defending that here, so I haven't had to
rant on it.)
But pedophiles like to say that anti-CP-ers are all a bunch of
sexually-repressed religious-fanatic-BIGOTS that like to HATE people
that are "different from them".
What a crock! I hate broccoli, but I don't hate people that LIKE it.
'Cause eating broccoli is non-abusive to humans. Just like I don't hate
gays even though I am turned-off by the contemplation of sex with my own
gender. But if THEY like that....fine! Have fun....I've had plenty of
my own! Just don't be abusive to kids or ruin the pool where we all
take our partners from by spreading disease. Is that too much to ask?
Shouldn't be.
And I don't hate pedophiles because they have a sexual orientation that
I don't share, EITHER!
I hate them because they act-out their orientation by indulging in the
abusive practice of Child Pornography.
But that is because I am an "Abuse-ophobe".
And PROUD of it !
***********
Pedophiles Enjoy Child-Abuse "Images".
Dorothy Sacks
anadvocate wrote in message <384519e7....@dosa.alt.net>...
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:43:42 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote::
>>you don't just email them privately. Are you just playing some rude
>>childish game, in essence, whispering in front of others?
>
>
>So, to maintain our snotty reputation, we'll mix up the answers.
>
>Yes, because we can, we're nearly impossible to reach by email.
>--
>
>anadvocate
And despite your answers, it is rude in a public forum, in my opinion.
Pariticularly since you are hinting around as if you intend to hack
webtv to get Good22's account. If you really could do that you would
not need to play little boy games here. And if you did decide to do it,
you would be unethical boors.
Dorothy
goo...@webtv.net
""Try PACE dimwit, Pedophiles Against Child Exploitation.""
I DID......Double-Dimwit Mouth!!!! I looked up http/www.pace.com.
YOU try it!! D'ya see anything about "Pedos Against CP there????? Or
Against "CE"? Or ANYTHING about it?
Where ELSE am I supposed to look?
Is Pedo-Anti-CP-Activity some kind of goddamm..... SECRET?
JEEEZ!!!
(Don't worry...I'm ok, really. He's just infuriating me a little.)
**********
Pedophiles Are Child Abuse Images
Dorothy Sacks
anadvocate wrote in message <385f2bc5....@dosa.alt.net>...
>On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 07:45:10 -0600, "Dorothy Sacks"
><toto...@spam.megsinet.net> wrote::
>
>>
>>anadvocate wrote in message <384519e7....@dosa.alt.net>...
>>>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:43:42 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote::
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 18:55:51 GMT, anadv...@large.org (anadvocate)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>And despite your answers, it is rude in a public forum, in my opinion.
>>Pariticularly since you are hinting around as if you intend to hack
>>webtv to get Good22's account. If you really could do that you would
>>not need to play little boy games here. And if you did decide to do it,
>>you would be unethical boors.
>>
>>Dorothy
>>
>
>Madam, you wound us.
>
>It has never been our intention to be inadvertently rude to another
>poster in a newsgroup and we certainly wouldn't start now.
>
>We post to various newsgroups and enter into conversations for shear
>entertainment, little else. It may be that your standards for
>entertainment and ours vary, possibly a great deal. We can certainly
>understand your objections to seeing Mr. Dumb's and our encrypted
>conversations, we can see where you may feel somewhat 'cheated'
>perhaps at being left out of what may feel is an inside joke. We, on
>the other hand, find it dreadfully amusing to watch the near frantic
>offense this generates in the one with whom we are engaged (second
>hand, albeit) in a touch of "little boy games" with.
>
>We can offer a solution to this excluded feeling by offering you our
>PGP key so that you too may partake of our mild amusement, nay, even
>participate, should the urge strike.
>
>Should you decline, we will understand.
>
I will certainly decline the offer despite my curiousity. I don't believe
in leaving out others on a public forum, you see and I stand by that
despite the assertion from some that this was not even pgp. Thanks
for the invitation, but no I will not enter into your game despite the
fact that I am curious to see what you are saying. I think it's too bad
that you feel a need to make someone squirm even someone you dislike.
>And, in any case, to soothe delicate sensibilities and ease ruffled
>feathers, we will tone down our adventures in encryption.
>
>As for your 'unethical' aspersion;
>
>We are, Madam, if nothing else, the most ethical of boors.
>
>We promise you, Madam, you will never hear of us hacking webtv.
>
The fact that I would not hear of it simply means you might be discreet
about it. So that means nothing. You have been hinting around about
it in several posts and I have no idea whether you have the expertise
to do it. My statement stands. If you decided to do so it would be as
unethical as the actions of those other hackers you have attacked here
who tried to get at SC and Spyder.
Dorothy
Frank McCoy
>One question- as I understand it ALL PGP messages are recepient specific- so
>to send Kinda one you encrypt it with his public key- then he and only he
>can decrypt and read it. Having your public key would enable us to SEND you
>messages- but it would not allow us to read what you sent for Kinda. Am I
>correct in this?
They can be used in reverse, too.
I (for example) could publish my public key (or one of several public keys I
might maintain); or just send it to you.
I could then post a message encrypted with my *private* (or send it to you
personally), and you could then decode it using my public key that you had. If
you were the only one having that public key, then the message would remain
secret.
However, if I post my public key that everybody knows is mine, encrypt a message
with my private key, and then post the encrypted message, then what happens?
Well, then anybody could decrypt the message using my public key.
What's the use of that, you say?
Well, it proves that *I* was the person who originated the message; for only I
could so-encrypt the message to be descrambled with my public key.
Public-key encryption has lots of uses other than just keeping things secret.
Timothy Murphy
Kinda Dumb <ve...@smart.not> wrote in message
news:8093ko$i28$0...@dosa.alt.net...
>
> What? No picture?
>
> I reckon you're not a very vain kinda fella, huh Mr Murphy? ;)
>
I tried scanning in a photo of myself once.
Norton's stopped the procedure, something about 'poetentially hazordous
content'.
Go figure.
:-)
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 09:01:04 +0000, so...@boom.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 01:44:27 GMT, scre...@the.night (Spirit ChaserŠ)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Try PACE dimwit, Pedophiles Against Child Exploitation.
>>
>>Spirit,
>>
>>Can you post the URL for this group? I've looked all over for it.
>>Thanks.
>
>Sonic.
>
>System crash, I'll it when I can find the URL.....I lost over a gig of
>data, along with a lot of my personal files.
Wow how'd that happen. Okay when you get a chance please post the URL
darlin. Thanks. Give the puter a kissy for me.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>Well there's this one, not PACE, but it's a good one....
>
>http://danpedo.dk/english/
Seems like a lot there. I will have to go back to it at intervals to
read all of it.
>Here's the one for PACE:
>
>http://www.fpc.net/pages/pace/index.html
This never worked for me. Perhaps I can try again some other time.
>Unfortunately, the site hasn't been updated for a long time it seems.
>
>Some information sources regarding the subject:
>
>http://home.hkstar.com/~neutre/pedo.html
This is a bibliography mostly containing titles about sexuality, girls
and eros love of girls.
>Shows how much the definition has changed throughout history, and
>gives a few good sources about what the true meaning of it is.
>
>And here is a letter that you might find interesting. Sheds a little
>light on a very familiar relationship......me, and my daughter.
>
>http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~gravilabs/pedophilia/nmv.html
Well written, and I appreciate your honesty... but.....
I still have not seen anything on the subject we were talking about,
which was, as posed by Good22, where are all the sites or references
by self-proclaimed pedophiles who are against child pornography?
Dorothy Sacks
some of the information from these websites here since
apparently there are those who cannot get to the websites.
FYI, sonic and goody, I had no trouble getting to the PACE
website, but apparently they are having some kind of technical
difficulties.
So that said, this is part of the mission statement of that site
[7] What is child pornography?
To a pedophile, child pornography is any visual or audio media depicting
children in sexual acts with adults or other children. Pedophiles are
against the use of children for pornographic reasons.
[8] Aren't photos or videos of children in the nude considered to be child
pornography?
No, not to a pedophile anyway. There are many legal sources that show
children in the nude, including nudist videos and books, and some
photography books such as the ones by Sally Mann and Jock Sturges. Although,
these kind of media are coming under fire in some countries such as the
United States
[9] What does P.A.C.E. hope to accomplish and how?
We are committed to helping put a stop to the sexual exploitation and abuse
of children. At this time, due to the fact that we true pedophiles, (those
who do not harm children), do not have the proper credibility we deserve, we
will be working with other organizations like The National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children.
Spirit ChaserŠ wrote in message <382ee6f5...@news.alt.net>...
>Read the one from the Danish Pedophile association, and the one from
>PACE, (when you are able to gain access to it) your answers are more
>than likely there.
>
>Unfortunately, because of public ridicule and hysteria around todays
>definition of 'pedophile', any site that makes any reference that can
>be construed as defense of the actual meaning does not stay around
>very long, most servers pull them.
>
>Funny......there are all kinds of sites proclaiming the so called
>'sickness' of pedophilia....and the 'problems' of so called 'internet
>pedophiles'.....but the moment one defends it, or tries to show the
>other side....it is censored.
>
>Pace is not available on all servers.......I can get it on both of
>mine, but it's not surprising that you can't on yours......most sites
>that have anything positive to say about pedophilia are either pulled
>from the servers, or forbidden access.
>
>People seem to have the freedoms to express their 'disgust' about us,
>and twist the truth about us.......and when we try to act out in
>defense......we are silenced.
>
>It doesn't surprise me a bit.
>
>Try this one:
>
>http://www.cblf.org/cbffaq.htm
>
>Not what you are looking for, but similar.
>
>This one too:
>
>http://www.greenbelt.com/news/ph/
>
>And it's sister site:
>
>http://www.greenbelt.com/news/ul/index.htm
>
>
>All three of these are christian sites for pedophiles, the last two
>speak out against child porn, and support the feelings we have for
>children........girls, boys, or both.
>
>It's hard to find good sources these days, like I said......a lot of
>them are denied access.
>
>On the last one.....read the table of contents.....you might find it
>interesting.
>
>
>SC
>
>"Little girls.....like butterflies, need no excuse."
>---Robert Heinlein
so...@boom.com
SC wrote:
>>
>>Try this one:
>>
>>http://www.cblf.org/cbffaq.htm
>>
>>Not what you are looking for, but similar.
This is the Christian Boylove Forum. I must say, and this is my own
personal opinion formed from observing the boylove "movement" for
years, this type of forum exemplifies true hypocrisy and most of the
posters in this forum have no clue what a true relationship with
Christ really is, nor are they interested in that being the most
important thing on one's life. Many are there to pose argument and
flame others, as well as to get some juicy testaments from recovering
pedophiles and abusers.
I know of the person who moderates the following two sites and edits
the entire site and some of her cohorts, and while I think she has
done a good job of covering many areas unclear to the non-pedophile,
by linking to places such as the Pedophile Liberation Front and
Boylove chat I feel this cheapens and makes insignificant the good
work they try to do. These can be nasty places at times. It was when
I saw a post on the Boylove forum that linked to an offender recovery
site (which I really considered sacred) for some good stories, good
jerkoff material. I have actually spoken confidentially with a woman
who works on the site and she has told me they are trying to reach
everyone, so apparently, to me, they are doing so by sacrificing
decency in getting people to come to God. That trashes Christianity,
in my opinion.
so...@boom.com
wrote:
>PACE seems to be having a little bit of trouble, they are a good
>organization, well meaning and very serious.
Well, good. Any group of people bound together for a cause as noble
as stopping child abuse from occurring (even by sacrificing something
that they know is hurting children but which their addiction or
compulsion to is stronger than their desire to stop) is a positive
one.
>I do hope they get things off the ground......we could use more like
>them.
Yes. And thanks again for the links. If you hear any updates, I hope
you will inform me of them.
goo...@webtv.net
organization, well meaning and very serious.""
What is the "trouble"? What in the world could that be? There are
anti-CP groups all over the goddamm Net! And new ones spring up every
day, it seems. They have reams of material to read and ENDLESS links.
And their 'energy' for this is very impressive.
Even when I was finding out about such activity.....I could barely
scratch the surface.
So how come......a PEDOPHILE anti-CP organization is having all this
'trouble'?
And what IS the.....'trouble'?
Here's an idea........
NO PEDOPHILES WANT TO JOIN IT!
**************
Pedophiles and Pedosexuals ENJOY Looking At Photographs Of Children
Being Raped, Molested, And Sexually Exploited That Child-Abusers Take
For Them.
Then They Can't 'Understand' Why People Have Them...Confused...With The
Rapists, Molesters, And Sexual Exploiters Of Children.
But They Spend A Lot Of Time WHINING About It Between Their
Child-Abuse-Induced Orgasms!
And They Think AAC Is A Great Place To DO That Ludicrous And Boring
Whining.
goo...@webtv.net
""PACE seems to be having a little bit of trouble, they are a good
organization, well meaning and very serious.
I do hope they get things off the ground......we could use more like
them.
SC""
Er.....Spirit Chaser. Did it ever occur to you to help PACE to....
"get things off the ground"?
It sure seems that such an effort on your part would do a lot towards
the pedophile 'cause' that you are
"Never-going-to-give-up-on-while-you-still-have-a-breath-left-in-your-body".
But if you are content to just talk about butterflies....then you are
certainly free to do so.
*I* think butterflies are nice, too.
**************
Pedophiles Are Child Abuse
Chucky
>*I* think butterflies are nice, too.
What about caterpillars?
--
Chucky