CONTROVERSIAL - Let child molesters work with children again!
KnightWing
James Riske
> I'll get shot for saying this
<snip>
One can only hope...
--
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-- General George S. Patton, Jr.
Diogenes
From: "KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.support.girl-lovers,alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.news.boys,alt.activism.ch
ildren,alt.activism.youth-rights
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:35 AM
Subject: CONTROVERSIAL - Let child molesters work with children again!
I'll get shot for saying this but here goes...
We all know there's no cure for paedophilia.
- You assume that it's a disease. It isn't.
It seems so counterproductive to make child molesters try to suppress their
sexual drives through aversion therapy and other treatments.
- Agreed
Unlike other offenders, they are cutting themselves in half as people,
becoming like self-restrained celibate monks and priests.
- You are saying that murderers never repent. Is that true?
They have a self-loathing of their own sexuality.
- In my experience, this is not true. Most can handle it, simply by not
doing anything about it in physical terms.
It cannot be a satisfactory cure to hate yourself and your sexuality for the
rest of your life.
- Again, "cure" implies disease or disorder, which is not the case.
You can't cut yourself off from one quarter of the population forever.
- Which quarter?
Besides, if our society was more child-centred than it is now, then aversion
therapy wouldn't work because you would be surrounded by children
everywhere - in the workplace, at home and at friends and relatives.
- OTOH, child molesters seek out children for 'abuse', and most of them do
so within the context of a family, or loco parentis situation. In the
absence of cogent research on pedophiles who do not molest children, there
is little evidence that aversion therapy would be effective.
A more constructive but controversial way - even to other paedophiles -
would be let child molesters be with children again.
- Do you really think that in the current tabloid hysterical climate that
anyone could believe this is a good idea?
They would go through a form of empathising therapy with kids by playing
with them and learning about their needs and wishes.
- And to be cynical, to manipulate them, or "groom" them - the current
buzzword - into sexual activity which may be unwanted.
This would supervised by psychiatrists to guide the molester towards being a
nurturing parental figure.
- I don't trust psychiatrists any more than I trust actual child molesters,
or murderers, or lawyers. So I'm afraid that idea is a non-starter. You only
have to look at the intense political struggles within the APA to redefine
pedophilia to realise that they are somewhat conservative and sensitive to
ignorant public opinion.
As the therapy goes on, the molester would be encouraged to channel his
desires into raising and educating children through role play.
- "Channelling desires" frightens me here. "Role play" is a traditional tool
of insidious so-called child abusers, along the lines of "Show me yours and
I'll show you mine", "Our little secret", and other tropes. Chilling, and
however well-meant, unworkable.
Instead of aversion therapy, you could have attaction therapy. This would
entail the molester watching slides and videos of children he fancies acting
in roles provoking empathy and symapthy in the viewer.
- "He fancies"! Why should this "therapy" work when there is ample research
that even non-pedophiles are physically turned on by even fully clothed
images of children, and by child p0rn? Red rag to a bull, I'm afraid, and
the tabloid press would tear such a scheme to pieces - and that's assuming
any government would contemplate that it could work. They won't.
Along with role play, his kindness and caring qualities would be
strengthened and imprinted onto his sexual desire so he would always
associate sex with sharing, mutual consent and love, rather than dominance
and control of another living being.
- Problem is that no law would see this activity as being shared, mutual,
consensual or loving. Laws are made by conservatives, not liberals.
The final part of this process may even involve actual intercourse with a
child. Under supervision, a molester takes part in mutual massage sessions
with a child to bond his sexuality with the concept of emotional closeness.
He would put off orgasm each session, until he reaches the stage where the
two are united in his mind.
- Not possible. In fact, impossibly unrealistic. I wonder whether you've
thought this through. "Mutual massage"? What exactly do you have in mind?
When the molester comes out of jail he will be forced to work with children
as the final stage of his rehabilitation.
- In general, gaols are not about rehabilitation. The vast majority are in
prison for retribution and public protection, and there is very little rehab
going on.
He must, after all, put into practise what he's learnt in jail.
- "Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse" - Douglas Hurd, UK
Home Secretary. My own experience of English prison VP (Vulnerable Prisoner)
wings under Rule 45 is that most of what happens outside also happens
inside, e.g. drugs and porn, and sharing experiences. I really don't think
you've thought this through.
I predict that - unlike with current therapies - there would be very little
recidivism or offenders declining this treatment.
- But perhaps for the wrong reasons.
D.
Diogenes
"James Riske" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.05.01.00.41.907000@riske_linux.net...
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:33 +0000, KnightWing wrote:
>
> > I'll get shot for saying this
> <snip>
>
> One can only hope...
At least my response was constructive, James. Perhaps you should learn from
that. Until then, I feel free to ignore your useless, self-serving posts.
Have a nice day.
D.
wonderer
"James Riske" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.05.01.00.41.907000@riske_linux.net...
>
> > I'll get shot for saying this
> <snip>
>
> One can only hope...
typical red neck response, reminds of the KKK
Diogenes
news:FoYlc.20808$TT.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "James Riske" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.05.01.00.41.907000@riske_linux.net...
> > On Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:33 +0000, KnightWing wrote:
> >
> > > I'll get shot for saying this
> > <snip>
> >
> > One can only hope...
>
>
> typical red neck response, reminds of the KKK
It is noteworthy that whereas there will be reasoned responses to KW's post,
those who ignorantly oppose the ideas put forward in his post do not attempt
any justification at all. That is why they are trolls and should be ignored.
They are beyond reason, so do not deserve the dignity of a reply. Problem is
that they don't understand why they are stupid. That's because they are
stupid.
D.
KnightWing
"Diogenes" <d...@cynic.tub.tv> wrote in message
news:c79ejj$j9u$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com>
> Newsgroups:
>
alt.support.girl-lovers,alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.news.boys,alt.activism.ch
> ildren,alt.activism.youth-rights
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:35 AM
> Subject: CONTROVERSIAL - Let child molesters work with children again!
>
>
> I'll get shot for saying this but here goes...
>
> We all know there's no cure for paedophilia.
>
> - You assume that it's a disease. It isn't.
I never said it's a disease. I'm a child-lover. I don't believe that! But
like gay sex there is know 'cure' as the pedophobes think.
>
> It seems so counterproductive to make child molesters try to suppress
their
> sexual drives through aversion therapy and other treatments.
>
> - Agreed
>
> Unlike other offenders, they are cutting themselves in half as people,
> becoming like self-restrained celibate monks and priests.
>
> - You are saying that murderers never repent. Is that true?
No. I'm talking about their sexual orientation. Like gays, you cannot be
cured of your desires, although feelings about rape can be controlled.
>
> They have a self-loathing of their own sexuality.
>
> - In my experience, this is not true. Most can handle it, simply by not
> doing anything about it in physical terms.
>
> It cannot be a satisfactory cure to hate yourself and your sexuality for
the
> rest of your life.
>
> - Again, "cure" implies disease or disorder, which is not the case.
>
> You can't cut yourself off from one quarter of the population forever.
>
> - Which quarter?
Children, of course.
>
> Besides, if our society was more child-centred than it is now, then
aversion
> therapy wouldn't work because you would be surrounded by children
> everywhere - in the workplace, at home and at friends and relatives.
>
> - OTOH, child molesters seek out children for 'abuse', and most of them do
> so within the context of a family, or loco parentis situation. In the
> absence of cogent research on pedophiles who do not molest children, there
> is little evidence that aversion therapy would be effective.
>
> A more constructive but controversial way - even to other paedophiles -
> would be let child molesters be with children again.
>
> - Do you really think that in the current tabloid hysterical climate that
> anyone could believe this is a good idea?
All of this is what would happen in an ideal utopian society where
paedophilia is legalised, not our current one. Say in 2100 AD.
>
> They would go through a form of empathising therapy with kids by playing
> with them and learning about their needs and wishes.
>
> - And to be cynical, to manipulate them, or "groom" them - the current
> buzzword - into sexual activity which may be unwanted.
Not if they were guided by psychiatrists and paedophile mentors to guide
their feelings
>
> This would supervised by psychiatrists to guide the molester towards being
a
> nurturing parental figure.
>
> - I don't trust psychiatrists any more than I trust actual child
molesters,
> or murderers, or lawyers. So I'm afraid that idea is a non-starter. You
only
> have to look at the intense political struggles within the APA to redefine
> pedophilia to realise that they are somewhat conservative and sensitive to
> ignorant public opinion.
See above about the utopian society.
>
> As the therapy goes on, the molester would be encouraged to channel his
> desires into raising and educating children through role play.
>
> - "Channelling desires" frightens me here. "Role play" is a traditional
tool
> of insidious so-called child abusers, along the lines of "Show me yours
and
> I'll show you mine", "Our little secret", and other tropes. Chilling, and
> however well-meant, unworkable.
Not if the molester learnt how to interact with children in everyday life
through non-sexual play and mentoring. He would educate himself with
guidance from an expert in everyday encounters of socialising in
give-and-take, sharing, caring, helping others. This would reinforce in him
that this is the basis of all relationships, not abuse. In the future ideal
world where paedophilia is not outlawed, there would be no need for secrets
to be kept. All the paedophiles secrets would be voluntarily laid open by
himself.
>
> Instead of aversion therapy, you could have attaction therapy. This would
> entail the molester watching slides and videos of children he fancies
acting
> in roles provoking empathy and symapthy in the viewer.
>
> - "He fancies"! Why should this "therapy" work when there is ample
research
> that even non-pedophiles are physically turned on by even fully clothed
> images of children, and by child p0rn? Red rag to a bull, I'm afraid, and
> the tabloid press would tear such a scheme to pieces - and that's assuming
> any government would contemplate that it could work. They won't.
Your assuming that child molesters are stuck with their behaviour patterns
for life. I don't believe that. Child molesting is no different to any other
crime. Even rapists are not kept from women for all life - half the
population! Like other crimes it's about disestablishing behavioral reflexes
conditioned in the molester over his lifetime from avery young age. It can
be done. We've seen it with a lot of child molesters who have come out of
prison after therapy. But the trouble is that a lot of molesters won't go
through the therapy to eliminate experiencing their sexual orientation that
they have a right to. This leads to a lot of recidivism. It only works on
people who are suceptible to beliving that paedophilia in general is wrong.
That's where my radical solution comes in.
>
> Along with role play, his kindness and caring qualities would be
> strengthened and imprinted onto his sexual desire so he would always
> associate sex with sharing, mutual consent and love, rather than dominance
> and control of another living being.
>
> - Problem is that no law would see this activity as being shared, mutual,
> consensual or loving. Laws are made by conservatives, not liberals.
Laws can change. Just look at the repeals of legislation baning
homosexuality, mixed-race marriages, abortion etc. As society becomes more
secular conservative influence wanes more and more.
>
> The final part of this process may even involve actual intercourse with a
> child. Under supervision, a molester takes part in mutual massage sessions
> with a child to bond his sexuality with the concept of emotional
closeness.
> He would put off orgasm each session, until he reaches the stage where the
> two are united in his mind.
>
> - Not possible. In fact, impossibly unrealistic. I wonder whether you've
> thought this through. "Mutual massage"? What exactly do you have in mind?
A way to imprint on the molester the idea that a person's body belongs to
themself and can only be shared by mutual consent. That sex is union of two
minds and bodies not control of one by another. He wouldn't do this without
non-sexual socialising with kids to reinforce this first.
>
> When the molester comes out of jail he will be forced to work with
children
> as the final stage of his rehabilitation.
>
> - In general, gaols are not about rehabilitation. The vast majority are in
> prison for retribution and public protection, and there is very little
rehab
> going on.
>
I know. That's what my rehabilitation idea is there to rectify.
> He must, after all, put into practise what he's learnt in jail.
>
> - "Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse" - Douglas Hurd,
UK
> Home Secretary. My own experience of English prison VP (Vulnerable
Prisoner)
> wings under Rule 45 is that most of what happens outside also happens
> inside, e.g. drugs and porn, and sharing experiences. I really don't think
> you've thought this through.
>
Not if you make this treatment compulsory for all sex offenders and therapy
in general for all the other offenders. Having a system where they all
contibute to the wider community and themselves through work and group
activities where they socialise together would help reduce any internal
conflicts. Also, having crackdowns on drugs and any other illegal
conrtraband helps to maintain the moral unity of prison, like a military
unit.
> I predict that - unlike with current therapies - there would be very
little
> recidivism or offenders declining this treatment.
>
> - But perhaps for the wrong reasons.
Not if it works.
KnightWing
>
> D.
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Secret Squirrel
"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
news:40982...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
> I'll get shot for saying this but here goes...
You? Stir up the pot? Heaven forbid! <grin>
- From your post, I'm taking it that you're differentiating
what you're calling "molestation" (sex gotten from a minor
via coercion, or intimidation, or trickery, or threats?)
from "adults who have consensual sex with kids". Am I right?
Because I don't think that the most who engage in the most
common usuage of "molestation" (*any* sex between adults
and those under whatever the AOC is, consensual or intitiated
by the youngster or not) are lacking in empathy or fail to
connect sex with closeness and love. So they don't need
to have this therapy. (Of course, they don't need to be
incarcerated, either).
I might think that there may be some, who when threatened
with exposure, might let fear get the better of them and
resort to threats, or attempt coercion, or even violence,
to keep the kid quiet. But again, the cure for that
situation is to withdraw the threat of punishment, to make
the activity legal. If there's no threat of punishment from
exposure, then this temptation will be withdrawn. Lots of
unfaithful married adults might act likewise if the penalty
for adultery was 15 years in prison, they might attempt
to threaten or even beat up a lover who threatened exposure.
As for those who truly like to punish, humiliate, coerce,
intimidate, or threaten others, irregardless of age, "fixing"
these types of offenders might be beyond our current science.
They may have had brutal and nasty childhoods themselves,
and actually may have a brain hardware problem, so to speak
from it. If you can give me a day or two, I can copy a
recent _New _Scientist article on this, and post it (I have
to type it in all by hand, no copy-and-paste from paper).
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQJgugT/rA6+b3AyhAQEJGgf5AfYDNj/eK7ZCuvfKNvIO41jI/lDyTxxs
MbkckbaGOQpbxCEo2BYoR8ciZCBRGfU/eTzDE76L7BsI+55Hb0RGsi4G9ympSgt4
tGyagTO6apcUDRQiSwc19PUKG86XQMdQlSIlSNBqHkrRAfVbWIlnGHXCQ3oYr8jx
ccGi0xoNAqzS0GURHIHe/vKf1vlmZKOAplH3pCVGIGSVvm6vb35aAiIikUkbu5q5
sEmLZs/K9wLA5CBxWwfFtqTGZUYAiJj4yf83hAQUNGS2KsxRErDN4b6YwBHkmj1S
Y5xshO4/3SOFFlILigjJ63G+9hSFTLTkmdaNoIzWLFAuSLY4G4kOMQ==
=AXZz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
W3
Looks like faggot atticus likes the idea of molesting children.Nothing
new here.
W3
One faggot child molester to another.
Tate Gerard
Oh look, Billy is back to pretending to ignore James, this should be funny.
KnightWing
thoughts. And yes, I am differentiating between consensual and
non-consensual sex. I once saw a documentary on criminal offenders which
showed a brain scan of one of them with a big tumour on the prefrontal
cortex. Hard core criminals with serious biological problems would obviously
not be suitable for the treatment I have outlined. They may require
intensive medical intervention instead.
KnightWing
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:IQ7AJ38E38112.8735300926@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Diogenes
"W3" <W...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:40996699$0$87786$45be...@newscene.com...
> Diogenes wrote:
> Looks like faggot atticus likes the idea of molesting children.Nothing
> new here.
It seems you still think I'm Atticus. That's your problem, the rest of us
have moved on.
If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd find that I am in no way saying
that I like the idea of "molesting children". If you think (and I use that
word in its loosest sense) that I said that, perhaps you could point out
*where* I said, or even implied that?
Furthermore, if you criticise me for something I haven't said, why not
criticise KnightWing for what he said? Afraid of a proper debate for once?
D.
Diogenes
news:c7btgb$del$0...@pita.alt.net...
No pretence, Tate. I am ignoring him. He's noticed it, haven't you? Perhaps
I should ignore you as well, after all, you're every bit as useless as he
is, but we both know why, don't we?
D.
>
James Riske
> "Tate Gerard" <tat...@bellsouth.com> wrote in message
> news:c7btgb$del$0...@pita.alt.net...
>> Diogenes wrote:
>> > "James Riske" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pan.2004.05.05.01.00.41.907000@riske_linux.net...
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:33 +0000, KnightWing wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>I'll get shot for saying this
>> >>
>> >><snip>
>> >>
>> >>One can only hope...
>> >
>> >
>> > At least my response was constructive, James. Perhaps you should learn
> from
>> > that. Until then, I feel free to ignore your useless, self-serving
> posts.
>> > Have a nice day.
>> >
>> > D.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Oh look, Billy is back to pretending to ignore James, this should be
> funny.
>
> No pretence, Tate. I am ignoring him. He's noticed it, haven't you?
Oh so now gutless "goodrich/diogenes" is pretending to know the things I
have "noticed".
Just when I thought I have "heard it all"
> Perhaps
> I should ignore you as well, after all, you're every bit as useless as he
> is, but we both know why, don't we?
Pretend to ignore usenet altogether "goodrich", nobody cares.
So noted.
James Riske
>
> "W3" <W...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:40996699$0$87786$45be...@newscene.com...
>> Diogenes wrote:
>
>> Looks like faggot atticus likes the idea of molesting children.Nothing
>> new here.
>
> It seems you still think I'm Atticus. That's your problem, the rest of us
> have moved on.
Everyone knows you used to post as anonymous pedophile "atticus" as well
as many other pseudonyms.
>
> If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd find that I am in no way saying
> that I like the idea of "molesting children". If you think (and I use that
> word in its loosest sense) that I said that, perhaps you could point out
> *where* I said, or even implied that?
You are a pedophile Billy, of course you would condone molestation.
>
> Furthermore, if you criticise me for something I haven't said, why not
> criticise KnightWing for what he said? Afraid of a proper debate for once?
Anonymous pedophile "Knightwing" does a great job of humiliating itself
without any help from the purveyors of truth, much like you, I think I
would literally die from laughter if I had to ridicule the both of you.
wonderer
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:IQ7AJ38E38112.8735300926@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
hello secret
As a school age child in the 50's i heard of several adults
that were imprisoned for adultary, this was abolished in the
70' or 80's when no fault divorce became law.
i have changed the name i was known by, that one i last used
is a registered busines in england, go to google ant type ZKL
and see what you come up with
Wonderer
wonderer
takes one to know one mirror man
Damion Perez
"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in message news:40982...@news5.uncensored-news.com...
KnightWing
"Damion Perez" <snwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:AEmmc.24528$Ut1.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Secret Squirrel
"Damion Perez" <snwd...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:AEmmc.24528$Ut1.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> Mutual Massage therapy -- for one thing i do not know any
> child who wants to be naked with a complete stranger
I've seen kids, and not just toddlers but older too, who
apparently love to be naked. Even in front of strangers,
to the dismay of their parents.
> who is
> in jail for fucking children like this child, and you want
> both to be naked and to let each other give the other a
> massage? Never happen, because no child would volunteer,
> and no parent would allow it. And finally no self
> respecting doctor will supervise it.
Darned few now, at least, at least not in the USA.
> And Last -- you want to stick this predator back into the
> thick of kids around him giving him opportunity, access,
> concealment, and control over the kids.
To be fair to KnightWing, he stipulated that the offender
would be under supervision at *all* times during this therapy.
> This is the most utterly stupid plan where a criminal only
> gets encouraged to continue his actions, with the promise
> of letting them fuck a child for free once they complete
> the course.
>
> See this just shows how criminal minds work. To them this
> is therapy, to us it is utter nonsense. It is our job as
> moral valued adults, as parents, to protect, and raise
> these children so that they grow up into good law abiding
> productive workers. The thing we have to protect is a
> childs innocence. Because by protecting their innocence we
> protect their only shield against this very cold, creul
> world that we live in. We had our entire childhood, and
> teenage years before we discovered how cold and creul the
> world could be, and even then it was a shock to us. And
> you see what happens to kids who have to learn this when
> they are very young. They usually have problems to varying
> degree, or they end up just like the criminals that stole
> away their innocence.
I don't agree with KnightWing, either, but that's more due
to his definition of "molestation" in this case-- "molestation"
not being the more typical usuage of adults having sex with
minors per se, but instances where an adult has sex with a
minor to satisfy his or her own passions, by trickery or
bribery or threats or intimidation or even coercion. What
KnightWing is trying to propose would be equally applicable,
or misapplicable, with men who rape--he's trying to get the
rapist to see women as human beings, and to associate sex
with love, instead of conquest and a way to satisfy one's
passions at the expense of degrading someone. What you said
about your experience with those 6 pedophiles who you showed
that videotape to might be akin to how a rapist might reply:
"the woman is just asking me to fuck her" even though she's
just sitting by the pool in a bathing suit.
I have replied that I think such people *may* have brain
hardware wiring gone amiss, and that they are lacking in
the normal empathy that human beings have for one another.
Can that be restored by such therapy? Tricky question.
But to me, the adult who's in jail for just having
consensual sex with a minor doesn't need such therapy,
because he or she *does* connect sex with love and *does*
have the normal human empathy. But such people don't need
to be in prison, either.
Secret
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQJmAAT/rA6+b3AyhAQFQ+Qf9F8mUNKuvDSRDYvqAQtpnt7Nv38d1gft6
LeOZxLFFQ7z9HSBbOeN5oA3jsE2DubfnguV2m5KI9ypuv7lZ9dLm9CjBkuyQqCpg
JekPM/FueK7KC5ewpQyiWjRkH7GGsw5wjhoZOJW+GPRmv6IcAtVRC5LoSCvHQSmX
7IsEyoraEgmb4nHNEDeWfZBl7eXM1TntgMVODbFz0IHxUJwvmX0mj5duEWZmKO+b
/fNAfj5Y/bdRyBSvjmLNHoB/dTOQuYQcYUmqJhU2oy6Ps4/QsCnw3X36iCJP1OD2
NsbCjc0fft6Bnt3XSFDM73UPAv1xzOuLmNbhjqrP887g8t5P4oJu7Q==
=06pk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Crispy
Letting them molest children will just reward them for doing wrong in
the first place.
James Riske
> As I've stated in another reply in this thread, all of this is set in the
> fictional ideal world of 2100AD when paedophilia has been legalised, not
> now.
<snip>
All you can do is dream pedophile because pedophilia will never be
legalized.
Poor stupid pedophiles...
James Riske
That's probably the only intelligent thing you have ever said on usenet
Crispybill.
The only real way to deal with convicted pedophiles is execution, since we
have a pitifully sympathetic society that doesn't allow that to happen I
say we castrate them, only after that happens and the convicted pedo goes
through much counseling, only then should it even be returned to society.
But it should never be allowed around children ever again under no
circumstances whatsoever.
W3
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 17:36:01 +0000, KnightWing wrote:
>
>
>>As I've stated in another reply in this thread, all of this is set in the
>>fictional ideal world of 2100AD when paedophilia has been legalised, not
>>now.
>
> <snip>
>
> All you can do is dream pedophile because pedophilia will never be
> legalized.
>
> Poor stupid pedophiles...
>
It looks like these pedophiles dream all day and night for the chance to
rape children.This seems to be the one center of a miserable and
worthless life. Truly pathetic.
wonderer
> On Thu, 06 May 2004 17:36:01 +0000, KnightWing wrote:
>
> > As I've stated in another reply in this thread, all of this is set in
the
> > fictional ideal world of 2100AD when paedophilia has been legalised, not
> > now.
> <snip>
>
> All you can do is dream pedophile because pedophilia will never be
> legalized.
>
> Poor stupid pedophiles...
they said the same about witches, slavery and homosexuals, mirror man
wonderer
so say's evil to the third power, another mirror man
KnightWing
brain. It's more due to their background of abuse or neglect or other
sociological factors.
I still think my radical idea of mutual massage would work. Touch is an
important part of socialising with other people from a very early age. It
forms the bonds of social unity much like great apes grooming each others'
fur. It has become fashionable recently to promote parent-baby massage to
help children have closer relationships with their parents. This counteracts
the lack of touching resulting from our busy and stressful lifestyles.
Reinforcing this socialising instinct in molesters - perhaps by one-to-one
sessions with an adult parental figure first - could break down his barrier
towards loving other people.
I'm glad this little debate is going along on this hitherto unmentioned
subject matter. I let the cat out of the bag not so much to antagonise
pedophobes but to challenge the comfy notions of us paedophiles. Sometimes
in our desire to paint ourselves as respectable we shove awkward truths
under the carpet, believing our own hype that paedophilia is a bed of roses,
and we're all nice people. One aspect of this is to demonise child molesters
as incurable monsters suffering from physiological disorders that the rest
of us "normal" paedophiles don't have. I believe, rather, that they have
personality disorders that can be treated by directing their sexuality in a
postive direction. That is, after all, what most non-practising paedophiles
who work with children do.
The point is that we want to change the world to accept paedophilia as a
good thing on trust. But we paedophiles don't even extend that trust among
ourselves to the criminal minority, then why should the wider population
trust us in general. Yes, I'll be the first to admit that there are
paedophiles at large I wouldn't let near a child. That's just human nature.
And you can't prevent every single person from commiting a crime or cure
every individual. But a wider culture belief by all society in caring for
our children together in general would help reduce the risk of any potential
offender commiting a crime. The culture would be aborbed by him internally,
just as the anti-paedophile culture today curtails most paedophiles from
practising their sexuality. We must extend this to the criminal minority to
give them a chance to reform into respectable citizens when they have served
their sentence. If we believe that paedophilia per se is not evil - and we
have a society in the future where it is legalised - then we can't rely on
the current therapeutic methods of suppressing a molester's sexual desire.
The only way is to channel it towards a positive social purpose. To use it
not destroy it.
Only by challenging our own ideas as paedophiles can we challenge other
people's.
KnightWing
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:KGILDSCN38113.8727777778@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Diogenes
> I think it's too easy to say most molesters have something wrong their
> brain. It's more due to their background of abuse or neglect or other
> sociological factors.
Opinion in the research community remains strongly divided as to causation
of homosexuality, pedophilia, molestation, you name it. The problem is that
it is divided, and has been for about the last thirty years, on traditional
liberal/conservative lines.
In other words, consensus as to causation has been a thorny issue, so it
follows that consensus as to reaction/treatment has been even more thorny.
Anyone who has followed the research over the last thirty years or so is
fully aware that there are no easy answers. So that lets out the trolls who
post here who prefer to rely upon National Enquirer, or the Daily Express,
as valid sources.
> I still think my radical idea of mutual massage would work.
You talk of this as "eventually". Perhaps. Right now, given the political
climate, it's a non-starter. You have to overcome the ignorance of people
like Riske and Gerard, for a start, and even those more receptive to new
ideas, because they have to be funded by someone - and they are not going to
be funded, or supported, by someone.
I remember similar brave attempts by TheSlurp, and Ronald MacDonald, in the
last ten years, and the PIE more than thirty years ago, to make the case you
are trying to make.
The reality is that the world is not yet ready for such different ideas, and
it's currently getting worse, in the sense of ascertaining the truth.
D.
Frank McCoy
Squirrel) wrote:
>I've seen kids, and not just toddlers but older too, who
>apparently love to be naked. Even in front of strangers,
>to the dismay of their parents.
Hm?
There's nothing unusual about liking to be naked.
Ask any nudist family. All kids are natural nudists.
Kids under 8 will usually not even ask what's up if taken to a nude
beach, camp, or resort; simply skimming off their clothes just as
easily (or easier) than they'd put on a swim-suit.
It's only later, after society beats the idea into their skulls that,
"YOU DO NOT GO NAKED!!!!" that children turning adolescent become
body-shy.
In many societies other than this one, children go around naked
without thinking about it, until reaching what WE call adolescence;
and THEY call becoming adults.
I still recall seeing my first naked body in a National Geographic
....
I also recall that as a "child" I liked to run around naked. I also
recall having to do it in secret, because Society frowned on the
practice ... even in the privacy of your own home. ;-{
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Crispy
> Crispybill.
It's not; it's only the first thing I've said that parallels your
opinion. The rest of the intelligent things I've said, you've seen fit
to berate me for. And you're still only talking to Crispy, here. I
won't fight you on anyone else; but I know that I'm me, and that I'm
not Bill. =)
> The only real way to deal with convicted pedophiles is execution, since we
> have a pitifully sympathetic society that doesn't allow that to happen I
> say we castrate them, only after that happens and the convicted pedo goes
> through much counseling, only then should it even be returned to society.
> But it should never be allowed around children ever again under no
> circumstances whatsoever.
The death penalty sahould be reserved for people who have killed
people. I agree that castration is a fitting punishment for sex
crimes. But after thought, castrating certain types of people would
only cause them to become violent, which would be creating a worse
problem while trying to fix the first. As for being around children;
there's no problem if there's supervision. That's whay I make sure to
not let myself stay long periods of time around boys I feel drawn
towards alone.
Secret Squirrel
"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
news:409ad...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
I agree with you on many of the generalities--we *are*
like bonobos, and if we were allowed touching and sexuality
from our childhoods onwards it would make us more gentle,
more peaceful, give us more empathy, I do believe.
However, we don't live in a culture that allows that, in
fact one that allows kids to be hit and beaten, and such
situations it may be that such people grow up with stunted
capacities to love and to feel empathy. Both Stalin and Hitler
grew up under strict, tyrannical fathers who beat them, no?
Recent evidence about violent criminals suggest that they
indeed may have a brain hardware problem from this. This
is why restoring a normal, natural, childhood, one where
kids *are* allowed to have sexual freedom, like bonobos,
is so important for humanity.
To me, this is not about me "not trusting pedophiles",
because I believe that most pedophiles who *do* have
sex with kids are getting it via consensual relationships,
and not via coercion or threats or intimidation. They need
liberation, not "fixing"; they certainly don't need to be
in jail. When you say "molesters" I interpret it as being
people who coerced or intimidated or threatened a kid to
get sex from them. That's more akin to rape.
Which leads me to ask: do you think that your therapy would
work with a hard-core heterosexual rapist? You must remember
that sometimes even serial killers had apparently normal
marriages, and their wives were as shocked as anyone else
when they were apprehended. Sad to say, by adulthood it might
be too late to fix such people, though I'll admit that's a
question that's not been resolved.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQJrRgT/rA6+b3AyhAQGyuAf8C2jNinKgcbouyb2AVhqmOosQCkI96dMn
JA6F0BkIG1DqVScjr/bJGGAiLkuJBvAhnGjF6zosi4/QJHHrurNLsa8qleT+DCIE
N2kOqwCa7FndX7SQgU1juhLafNVJCKtcCE0cYi1RI6D3fOYnB451E6WffAegz/qX
jA2Mt9j1jZnrCuHFhGvOnCXvxJ76a5NZaZ5AimXUyl+bB1j1JiPt3UOtwuJiM1+d
tYL0YmeMNfnM4N0bFwiYdnqbjVl/OuLD8IphM0Ik1CTAPjF4maPl+0W7cLPTI5ni
1DPPAkZR1zy4So6tylJQKq56aFAFPgp54TVIJgcDHKjiDne0RM0onQ==
=mjL2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Secret Squirrel
Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in
news:1arl90hopba15glev...@4ax.com:
> In alt.support.girl-lovers ssqu...@nottheremailer.net
> (Secret Squirrel) wrote:
>
>>I've seen kids, and not just toddlers but older too, who
>>apparently love to be naked. Even in front of strangers,
>>to the dismay of their parents.
>
> Hm?
> There's nothing unusual about liking to be naked.
> Ask any nudist family. All kids are natural nudists.
> Kids under 8 will usually not even ask what's up if taken
> to a nude beach, camp, or resort; simply skimming off their
> clothes just as easily (or easier) than they'd put on a
> swim-suit.
>
> It's only later, after society beats the idea into their
> skulls that, "YOU DO NOT GO NAKED!!!!" that children
> turning adolescent become body-shy.
>
> In many societies other than this one, children go around
> naked without thinking about it, until reaching what WE
> call adolescence; and THEY call becoming adults.
Very true. We've extended childhood way longer than most
societies. In part that's due to our complex technology,
we have so much to teach kids first. However, given the
fact that kids seem to pick up new technology as fast if
not faster than adults, I'm not entirely sure that there's
not a component of adult self-interest, in keeping kids
out of the labor force as competition to prop up wages.
It would be undoubtedly true that if kids *were* allowed
to work, and were allowed to keep their wages (instead
of having the parents or other adults able to legally
confiscate them, which is really what is "bad" about the
stereotype of child labor) it could be liberating, not
enslaving. Most other groups gain freedom and rights once
they get economic clout. Kids would be able to do likewise.
And with the baby bust, we might have to do exactly this.
Technology is extending our lifetimes, but it isn't really
doing likewise with our health. You can live longer than
you can be able to work. And the increasingly larger fraction
of oldsters in the population will need someone to foot their
bills, no?
This might be an infrastructure "trigger" that will bring
about change.
> I still recall seeing my first naked body in a National
> Geographic ....
>
> I also recall that as a "child" I liked to run around
> naked. I also recall having to do it in secret, because
> Society frowned on the practice ... even in the privacy of
> your own home. ;-{
>
Of course. And the "you do not go naked" message that gets
beaten into people is inextricably intertwined, I think,
with keeping their childhoods sex-free.
Boys especially, and adolescent boys in particular, get
erections *all* the time. Hard to hide the signs of sexual
arousal if you're a male and nude, no? And once someone
gets sexually aroused, well, it tends to be "contagious".
I think that you can see in this a peek of why societies
long ago, who needed to control their numbers, started
to repress childhood sexuality. It's tied to why we cover
up our genitalia, and why we screw in private and not in
public. If kids were allowed unlimited freedom to engage
in sexual activities as much as they wanted, even though
it would not lead to offspring, there's no way that you
could continue to restrain them as adults.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQJrRgT/rA6+b3AyhAQG4Jgf+JVCaHAe+qb1j8KxNfOjLP9sBMu5fPQNw
Oi3m0bf57SSc1HxF1iAvVV6QEaMdw716Y+5WpnjBev+hRnsVts/2LxmDsyFjAN3w
/uQ5hJu6lF6uAzj+ECKWQavjFVxmJKqdqjIAxpnbCW75q13BPu6kJH6Zi7DgpeWP
0Pih7L58oWKj51FABJTtcCWMYUsU0Jn1sRWBt5qrSUd9hl9DDeqYSDbxcDdXSiCd
rddvU/O2YQ1mbsSiSefRaa+O0HRrklVM0lRnh8DHmNGfAYKrsplbpFiYwxtIcspo
ilGsk+vX0WsKTqcu6JpW4r8vV7bgmFPMGHGPFGUi82mavARl8srPWQ==
=KhPA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
KnightWing
still have plastic enough brains to learn new attitudes, although this gets
harder as we age. We are the child ape that retains its learning capacity
into adulthood. For the hardest cases retraining their minds to behave in a
different way may be beyond hope. But - like most criminals - the majority
of child molesters, i.e. those who rape children, I don't think are too far
gone to be helped. We've seen it with current therapies to reduce offending
behaviour, according to pcychologists and other probation experts who appear
in the British media. A schizoid view of sex where a molester has a normal
relationship with one person and then commit rapes on other people would be
dealt effectively by good therapy. The offender is given the message that
love is an essential component of ALL relationships, that all women and
children are valid sexual beings with their own individual worth. They are
not a dichotomy of the Madonna / whore complex, with the wife representing
the pure Madonna and all other women / children symbolising the whore.
KnightWing
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:GGOAX6R33811...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________
KnightWing
some on British TV talking about being on the lookout at nudist resorts in
case there are any paedophiles lurking around waiting to snatch their
children. Also, unlike their gay equivalents, "family" nudist resorts
emphasise their "normality" to the outside world. They state that no-one at
their camps ever has an erection in public, and the only people who do are
"textiles" - undeducated the clothed majority - coming in for cheap thrills.
They de-sex the naked body to make it family friendly and inoffensive,
especially to give a comforting view of naturism to the clothed outside
world. Of course, they are just as anti-paedophile as the rest of the
population. By taking sex out of nudity, I feel they are just as controlling
of their children as everybody else. Just because they take a few holiday
snaps of their kids playing naked on the beach it does not mean they are any
more permissive about child sexuality.
It's very much the modern day version of Victorian morality surrounding nude
paintings and statues. It was okay to show them but only if they depicted
the body in a cold sexless stauesque fashion. With modern day naturists,
it's only okay to have nudes of kids if they are sentimentalised in a
sexless "cute" way, much like the Victorians also did with child nude
photography.
Rather than a sexually liberated paradise, it seems today's bland nudists
only want to portray the freedom of nudity as doing boring housework with
the wind blowing around their wobbly bits. Bring back the ancient Greeks in
the palestra with their ethic of nude sporting liberty and the love of boys!
KnightWing
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:QK8RVJAT38114.8576967593@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Rick Wiliger
news:c79kda$43t$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
> "wonderer" <afor...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:FoYlc.20808$TT.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "James Riske" <james...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.05.05.01.00.41.907000@riske_linux.net...
>> > On Tue, 04 May 2004 23:35:33 +0000, KnightWing wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'll get shot for saying this
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > One can only hope...
>>
>>
>> typical red neck response, reminds of the KKK
>
> It is noteworthy that whereas there will be reasoned responses to KW's
> post, those who ignorantly oppose the ideas put forward in his post do
> not attempt any justification at all. That is why they are trolls and
> should be ignored. They are beyond reason, so do not deserve the
> dignity of a reply. Problem is that they don't understand why they are
> stupid. That's because they are stupid.
>
> D.
Hey goodrich the lying troll, care to explain why England has no records of
a "Dr. Bill Goodrich" listed anywhere working in pedophile treatment
programs?
I'm sure you are just itching to post some more lies, well I just gave you
another reason.
Rick Wiliger
Oh so this is the new name Billy is hiding behind these days.
"diogenes".
Poor "goodrich", he worked so hard to make people believe that he really
was a doctor.
Secret Squirrel
"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
news:409c1...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
still playing catch-up
> I'm not sure nudists are all that permissive as we like to
> think. I've seen some on British TV talking about being on
> the lookout at nudist resorts in case there are any
> paedophiles lurking around waiting to snatch their
> children. Also, unlike their gay equivalents, "family"
> nudist resorts emphasise their "normality" to the outside
> world. They state that no-one at their camps ever has an
> erection in public, and the only people who do are
> "textiles" - undeducated the clothed majority - coming in
> for cheap thrills.
Which shows you really how repressed and UN-natural they
truly are. It's NATURAL for men and boys to have erections,
to suppress them requires conscious effort.
> They de-sex the naked body to make it
> family friendly and inoffensive, especially to give a
> comforting view of naturism to the clothed outside world.
> Of course, they are just as anti-paedophile as the rest of
> the population. By taking sex out of nudity, I feel they
> are just as controlling of their children as everybody
> else. Just because they take a few holiday snaps of their
> kids playing naked on the beach it does not mean they are
> any more permissive about child sexuality.
>
> It's very much the modern day version of Victorian morality
> surrounding nude paintings and statues. It was okay to show
> them but only if they depicted the body in a cold sexless
> stauesque fashion. With modern day naturists, it's only
> okay to have nudes of kids if they are sentimentalised in a
> sexless "cute" way, much like the Victorians also did with
> child nude photography.
>
> Rather than a sexually liberated paradise, it seems today's
> bland nudists only want to portray the freedom of nudity as
> doing boring housework with the wind blowing around their
> wobbly bits. Bring back the ancient Greeks in the palestra
> with their ethic of nude sporting liberty and the love of
> boys!
I concur with you on this, but that's because I think that
today's naturist aren't very natural. <grin> Nudist resorts
today have been rightfully described as having the same
atmosphere as a church picnic, save that no one's wearing
clothes. And your comments on sexless nude art is right on
the money--I mean, can you not remembering looking at all those
hot statues and paintings and getting sexually aroused as a
kid? (I can). Yet the "proper" attitude is supposed to be
what--sexless appreciation of what is obviously very erotic?
A better view of our bonobo-like sexual nature might be from
gay men's bathhouses and retreats where nudity is allowed,
and people have sex in public. And once someone starts screwing
in public, and everyone's nude, then watch out!--everyone
joins in, just like bonobos. That is the glimpse of our true
sexual natures, the one that our cultures, for a variety
of reasons, sought to repress during our cultural evolution.
Understanding that, I believe, is the key to understanding
our sex taboos.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQKK6gT/rA6+b3AyhAQFyxwf+PmGEy6Ee8I+GsBKQvK7CwYtS6e/0uhgl
Jz6wRKBQFoTXuDR+Te2XEN2TrCl4G+UHOGAV3mK4jsigiMe3vQ7ZNpQFat+5BEJR
H0fIebpfOyataLaVmepWH7Lzes6tmxHczuHqxWvmMbjZOvWjL2voafOptEuLTKVw
vTlNg7uGUkplGjfTBTrZtRL4VSZvzp5NHKaMBSSrV8VO50jEJVNRKGBDU2FcJh6q
RajEIsoi/D6+EknqMKmOwwCqO/QUpA29r3ywVqjCTzgqhKhNcJe03cCPPBQw4uuT
QL6HwDKu3CUKM31D4rVvJL0dtNDb5Bi0J7SiqgLnAjaEtW9o+8mBXQ==
=F8aE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
KnightWing
Michaelangelo, Donatello.... :)
But aren't so called radical modern artists hypocritical? If they say they
are brave in pushing the boundaries of shock art why don't they make nudes
of children? Then - like at the Royal Academy -they'd really get a
Sensation!
KnightWing
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:2PAOD9H238120.8183217593@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________
James Riske
> I love classical art. There are so many pretty nudes of boys! Caravaggio,
> Michaelangelo, Donatello.... :)
>
> But aren't so called radical modern artists hypocritical? If they say they
> are brave in pushing the boundaries of shock art why don't they make nudes
> of children? Then - like at the Royal Academy -they'd really get a
> Sensation!
>
>
> KnightWing
Kill yourself pedophile, the world will never accept pedophilia at any
point during your pathetic child-molesting lifetime.
So noted.
Frank McCoy
<ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
>news:409c1...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
>
>still playing catch-up
>
>> I'm not sure nudists are all that permissive as we like to
>> think. I've seen some on British TV talking about being on
>> the lookout at nudist resorts in case there are any
>> paedophiles lurking around waiting to snatch their
>> children. Also, unlike their gay equivalents, "family"
>> nudist resorts emphasise their "normality" to the outside
>> world. They state that no-one at their camps ever has an
>> erection in public, and the only people who do are
>> "textiles" - undeducated the clothed majority - coming in
>> for cheap thrills.
>
>Which shows you really how repressed and UN-natural they
>truly are. It's NATURAL for men and boys to have erections,
>to suppress them requires conscious effort.
>
I dunno ... while wandering around nude, and even being around nude
and sexy women, I rarely if ever even felt a twinge of an erection.
Only if said women were *acting* sexy did/do I tend to get aroused;
and THEN it didn't matter much if the woman was nude, in a bikini,
wearing a nightgown, work clothes, or chadoor.
Oh, if being *alone* and looking at *pictures* while thinking sexy
thoughts, then (usually) the less clothing worn the better, to fit my
erotic fantasy.
But a woman wearing sexy clothes is usually *much* more erotic (and
likely to raise an erection) than one totally nude.
Why? Because the wearing of sexy clothing *implies* a present
interest in sex ... if not with me, then with somebody. A nude woman
is just nude; and unless you know WHY she undressed, chances are she
wasn't thinking of sex when she got that way. Especially at a nudist
resort.
--
Secret Squirrel
"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
news:40a3f...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
> I love classical art. There are so many pretty nudes of
> boys! Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, Donatello.... :)
>
> But aren't so called radical modern artists hypocritical?
> If they say they are brave in pushing the boundaries of
> shock art why don't they make nudes of children? Then -
> like at the Royal Academy -they'd really get a Sensation!
Absolutely true.
I feel the same way about too many "liberals" on usenet.
Why, they go out and proudly proclaim how they're for civil
rights for African-Americans! And against anti-Semitism! And
the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII was an awful
thing! And women and gays? They should have equal rights
too!
All too often, they're fighting yesteryear's battles, then
congratulating themselves for how "enlightened" they are.
Then they unquestioningly accept the anti-pedo propaganda,
just like people in the past accepted racist, anti-semitic,
anti-feminist, and homophobic propaganda without thinking.
Can't they see that they're just as blind today as their
predecessors were?
Ira Glasser once said it's good to be against yesterday's
abuses and wrongs, and for the rights of yesteryear's
victims. But it's much *better* to be against those being
committed today, and to stand up for the rights of those
being victimized *today*.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQKQMAT/rA6+b3AyhAQFDIwgAqHzxac2UzO2KLIwEPk14F3tzuvqCOrEE
IjXh7aEAKOzvcwwoZv/EmFEQVj/sWe6A2qRYMr239ahwFKgHgdVYE5cf7legehqm
gK/zSdFZSGpa7ezjb0tuZPHccdQgarWC30rbKbaN7Ss6VwwLPSoUu8PEqlbqovVX
QFup7jmGG9N9QG07txNt43xsXKUMjfcwaBCRq9w4x+r9ymTtQTTagxaTLWA7iLvl
nAWnhGmul1JLeghXFZTxiENb6X6wR0LPiQ694hCS8Q5AL2GdbGHDzw+1vB7k7Eto
eFsHFeaURWYIYdKJurKSHFDCgYX2pKFZ7SdAHdZBzuajbVSgC+3bSg==
=tJV1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Secret Squirrel
"KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
news:409c1...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
> Although the hardwiring of our neurons establishes itself
> in adulthood we still have plastic enough brains to learn
> new attitudes, although this gets harder as we age. We are
> the child ape that retains its learning capacity into
> adulthood. For the hardest cases retraining their minds to
> behave in a different way may be beyond hope. But - like
> most criminals - the majority of child molesters, i.e.
> those who rape children, I don't think are too far gone to
> be helped. We've seen it with current therapies to reduce
> offending behaviour, according to pcychologists and other
> probation experts who appear in the British media. A
> schizoid view of sex where a molester has a normal
> relationship with one person and then commit rapes on other
> people would be dealt effectively by good therapy. The
> offender is given the message that love is an essential
> component of ALL relationships, that all women and children
> are valid sexual beings with their own individual worth.
> They are not a dichotomy of the Madonna / whore complex,
> with the wife representing the pure Madonna and all other
> women / children symbolising the whore.
I wish I could share your optimism, but I fear that--in the
absence of drugs that can stimulate the parts of the brain
which in hardened, violent, criminals seem to lack activity,
at least initially (I see that I may have to sit down and
post that _New _Scientist article) that there may be little
that we can do for such people.
I do agree that recent studies have indicated that the brain,
even the adult brain, is more plastic than researchers had
originally thought, that adult brains can change, but most
would also agree that they're not as plastic as the brains
of children.
I think that we can further agree that the unique plasticity
of the brains of children is one of the reasons why we need to
stop child abuse--*real* abuse, not calling sex as "abuse"--
where adults (usually parents) are being violent with kids and
possibly turning out future violent criminals in the process.
However, I think that type of abuse will not go away until
we abolish the nuclear family as our primary child-caretaking
unit, where kids can get trapped in households under adults
who have neither the inclination, the skills, or the interests
in caring for them--yet the law tries to *force* those very
adults to be child caretakers, and indeed gives them a
monopoly of power over the children. And neglect, even violence,
to the kids is frequently the result, and can only be stopped
after the fact, usually only after a *long* period of abuse.
A more insane relationship for raising children is dificult
to imagine.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQKQMAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHXFgf+NNXdjga8EK3iBznKdukldQTk0Zr2DwaJ
ZCmKiAX3HZeG3ZHDEahNleWDT84zpVX80HgAkDhxV1L8J2a9dGAbf0QgqyvszzNU
xPaPPV4m0hNi3HV/I7p8vsrD4gU2B8DMJQ24y+IfEcxezxC3ZPTN/Rvj3lJ+cWvJ
VGXYc0z11eD1W0bugBWjUQl9j2J0JEZug1ChadOGajtSAygqtRHfTghbPWMQq/Jn
kPMDCjRmPI4zlmC3NxKPSHKrExiI7TUjYt0D/w8yWRR1DwRbfW6G7i+BDeyiOb4U
Nb6z8wQ4A3h8EvdCVdj/zkvT9AGpL90p+QhY6PTDH5Vjufpao0czhw==
=yZlm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diogenes
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> "KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com> wrote in
> news:40a3f...@news5.uncensored-news.com:
>
> > I love classical art. There are so many pretty nudes of
> > boys! Caravaggio, Michaelangelo, Donatello.... :)
> >
> > But aren't so called radical modern artists hypocritical?
> > If they say they are brave in pushing the boundaries of
> > shock art why don't they make nudes of children? Then -
> > like at the Royal Academy -they'd really get a Sensation!
>
> Absolutely true.
Not in the case of Jake & Dinos Chapman, whose mannequins of pre-pubescent
children with penises for noses, for example, caused a stir not so many
years ago. Or, less on topic, their reconstructions in 3D of some of Goya's
more outrageous war atrocity paintings. No prosecutions followed, even
though the NeoCons were outraged and even the liberals felt uncomfortable.
On the point of "Sensation", this was a challenging Brit-Art exhibition some
years back. Those not included countered with their anagrammatical
exhibition, "Ant Noises"; they missed the obvious anagrammatical extension
of "Inane Toss"!
But this is nothing new. Almost ninety years ago, Picasso and the
Surrealists were heavily criticised for their ground-breaking art which by
today's standards looks tame.
D.
KnightWing
taste and censorship by touching on the subject of child abuse. For example
the artist who made a picture of child-muderer Myra Hindley out of
children's handprints. Or this year's Turner Prize winner, Grayson Perry, a
transvestite who makes pottery with paintings of child abuse. The Chapman
brothers' plastic mannequins of children with penis-noses also comes to
mind.
All these gimmicks are cheap stunts by the artists to provoke a public
reaction. But they also cleverly and cowardly avoid the real taboo act of
depicting actual naked children, especially photographically. It seems it's
okay for modern artists to shock the wider public but not their own
politically correct, liberal-left circle of friends who would violently
object.
For that we have to turn to Sally Mann, Jock Sturges, Ron Oliver et al. But
even they duck the issue of sexuality in young people. They deny any sexual
intent in photographing their subjects, which I accept as being part of
today's climate, though I don't believe them. Sexuality instead is portrayed
as an "adult" phenomenon entering into an asexual child, as they blossom and
mature. Something like make-believe, where a child pretends to be an adult.
This renders the child as passive, inert and - most importantly -sexless, a
tabular rasa on which we adults write our notions of sex as we see fit. But
children are natural sexual beings whose sexuality springs forth from
within. In the form of real sexual desire with erections, masturbation,
playing doctor and orgasms. It's unfortunate that the real side of child
eroticism is not shown.
KnightWing
"Secret Squirrel" <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
news:D828MN413812...@Gilgamesh-Frog.org...
_______________________________________________________________________________
www.ttdown.com
<ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>
>Which shows you really how repressed and UN-natural they
>truly are. It's NATURAL for men and boys to have erections,
>to suppress them requires conscious effort.
Suppressing physiological response to sexually rousing stimuli is an
act of repression. However, you are making the assumption that the
sight of a naked body is always sexually rousing. This is a false
assumption.
They do not get aroused not because they are repressing, they do not
get aroused because they have desexualized the natural sight of an
unclothed human body. In reality, a naked body is looked at as sexual
only because of cultural conditioning. Nakedness in our culture
*implies* sex, however nakedness IS NOT the same as sex.
It is our societies view of nudity which is unnatural / contrived, NOT
the response given by males in nudist colonies.
>I concur with you on this, but that's because I think that
>today's naturist aren't very natural. <grin> Nudist resorts
>today have been rightfully described as having the same
>atmosphere as a church picnic, save that no one's wearing
>clothes. And your comments on sexless nude art is right on
>the money--I mean, can you not remembering looking at all those
>hot statues and paintings and getting sexually aroused as a
>kid? (I can). Yet the "proper" attitude is supposed to be
>what--sexless appreciation of what is obviously very erotic?
>
>A better view of our bonobo-like sexual nature might be from
>gay men's bathhouses and retreats where nudity is allowed,
>and people have sex in public. And once someone starts screwing
>in public, and everyone's nude, then watch out!--everyone
>joins in, just like bonobos. That is the glimpse of our true
>sexual natures, the one that our cultures, for a variety
>of reasons, sought to repress during our cultural evolution.
>Understanding that, I believe, is the key to understanding
>our sex taboos.
>
>Secret Squirrel
Your hypersexuality is not natural. We are human beings, not bonobos.
Similar and same are not equivocal. Our societies are different, as is
our biology. What is natural for a bonbo is not natural for a human
being. Your hypersexuality is the unnatural result of environment: for
whatever reason during your development and today you made a poor
asimilation into conventional societies' accepted view of sexual
behavior. It is also likely your pedophilia has something to do with
this.
You think you are free, esoteric, somehow more advanced and enlighted
than the mainstream. In reality you are merely poorly adjusted, much
like a developmentally arrested/interupted child (how ironic). You are
just as sexually warped and frustrated as your typical straight laced
christian, the only difference is the way you express this is exactly
opposite (they deal with confused notions of sexuality via repression
and hyposexuality, whereas you deal with it via hypersexuality and
sexualizing the unsexual i.e. any hint of a nude body and even
children). It's no small coincidence that those who err towards sexual
repression usually end up as hypersexualized deviants. The fanatically
religious are some of the most notorious child molestors.
www.ttdown.com
simply it has none. Child pornography taken by adults is exploitative.
The sexualizing of children by adults is likewise exploitative. This
is because children lack the mental capacity to give informed consent
to sex, and therefore adult/child sex is by its nature exploitative.
It is akin to sexualizing and having sex with those in comas or the
mentally retarded. It is a form of rape.
Yes, children do have a crude instinctual sexual responsiveness and
feeling, and experimenting with their environment (masturbation,
playing "doctor" with other kids) to some degree is part of natural
development. However, it is quite the illogical leap to extrapolate
from this that it is morally right and emotionally beneficial for
children to have sex with adults. Just the fact that children are
sexually responsive doesn't mean children are emotionally and
intellectually prepared to consent to sex. Nor does it mean it is
emotionally beneficial for a child to be fondeled by his caretaker.
You as an adult have a role in childrens lives, and it is NOT to
exloit them for your own ends.
On 14 May 2004 23:48:20 GMT, "KnightWing" <knigh...@skyfire.com>
wrote:
Diogenes
news:42raa0defi9f72ape...@4ax.com...
> No one will extol the virtues of child pornography because quite
> simply it has none. Child pornography taken by adults is exploitative.
So can you explain why it was actually perfectly legal in Denmark, Holland,
Sweden and Germany between 1969 and 1977? And can you analyse for me how
once this legality is established, even for a short time, it is possible to
contain the can of worms?
D.
Laurence Taylor
> No one will extol the virtues of child pornography because quite
> simply it has none.
Pornography of adults probably has no virtues either, but I don't
think that's the point.
> Child pornography taken by adults is exploitative.
> The sexualizing of children by adults is likewise exploitative. This
> is because children lack the mental capacity to give informed consent
> to sex, and therefore adult/child sex is by its nature exploitative.
> It is akin to sexualizing and having sex with those in comas or the
> mentally retarded. It is a form of rape.
What about the girl recently prosecuted for sending out pornographic
pictures of herself?
The statement that sex - any sex - is "by nature" exploitative is too
general to have meaning; some sex certainly is, some certainly is not,
it's up to those participating to make the decision.
And it has nothing to do with rape, unless you subscribe to the theory
that all men are rapists.
> Yes, children do have a crude instinctual sexual responsiveness and
> feeling, and experimenting with their environment (masturbation,
> playing "doctor" with other kids) to some degree is part of natural
> development. However, it is quite the illogical leap to extrapolate
> from this that it is morally right and emotionally beneficial for
> children to have sex with adults. Just the fact that children are
> sexually responsive doesn't mean children are emotionally and
> intellectually prepared to consent to sex. Nor does it mean it is
> emotionally beneficial for a child to be fondeled by his caretaker.
> You as an adult have a role in childrens lives, and it is NOT to
> exloit them for your own ends.
No-one said it was. Simply that, under certain conditions, it could
be. And of course that sex, when entered into by both parties of their
own free will, is not harmful.
Your commets strike me as not a little insulting and demening to young
people, who are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether or
not to indulge in any particular activity.
--
rgds
LAurence
... Cats have purr-sonality. =^..^=
Secret Squirrel
Laurence Taylor <see-h...@spamfree.plus.com> wrote in
news:40A63C3C...@spamfree.plus.com:
> "www.ttdown.com" wrote:
>
>> No one will extol the virtues of child pornography because
>> quite simply it has none.
>
> Pornography of adults probably has no virtues either, but I
> don't think that's the point.
Well, *I* think that pornography of all kinds is art, and
should be considered as such. Thinking that art somehow can't
deal with sexual topics, or that "proper art" shouldn't
elicit a sexual arousal, is simply prudish neo-Victorian bunk.
>> Child pornography taken by adults is exploitative.
>> The sexualizing of children by adults is likewise
>> exploitative. This is because children lack the mental
>> capacity to give informed consent to sex, and therefore
>> adult/child sex is by its nature exploitative. It is akin
>> to sexualizing and having sex with those in comas or the
>> mentally retarded. It is a form of rape.
>
> What about the girl recently prosecuted for sending out
> pornographic pictures of herself?
Not only that, but teens are now increasingly invading
adult chat rooms and personals groups, soliciting older
people for sex. Many cases they sign up as 18 year olds
to abide by the rules of the room or groups, and will
only reveal their true age in email or in their profile.
I'll confess: I've seen a few myself--as I have always said,
I only seek out legal-age people. The fact that these
are teens advertising themselves as being legal-aged is in
my mind strong evidence that they *are* what they say--
that would make no sense as a part of any law enforcement
entrapment scheme.
What kind of crime is it when the "victims" are so willing,
nay even eager, to circumvent their protection and seek
out their "victimizers"?
(snip)
> Your commets strike me as not a little insulting and
> demening to young people, who are quite capable of deciding
> for themselves whether or not to indulge in any particular
> activity.
Indeed they can. Or who with.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQKavAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHugQf6AuJmXtBha1dZAB4KXCmmP2Teur7CLjXG
fe9fJIa+9qNV3U4H/iA5gbpev4IQ+baY6c7b5/S+J0rEurxQb98IZriMTastmYpo
hYfHVOfWMyQsjhVoxmbcJWE2uATScKM0I0h5EIURaBBSvt6KkdLgdRqjOBKECmjd
f8YX6Smc5Mg67/1qcle4jYHdyCBs3G0wGCiTlemY8tsSSpD7koSQLTWL776Yz/3p
hayFgntHdtKa6sx6/IegLIEMcl5Qytj7kY8fWPgCw0wRoxCTNv2Kb9Y6Tv/ZBfzo
3omnKT9fukN2o3D10F28V67TxAWcmSqTQ7o4B+3t3EI0+2RXqlEm4Q==
=vrve
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Laurence Taylor
> > Pornography of adults probably has no virtues either, but I
> > don't think that's the point.
>
> Well, *I* think that pornography of all kinds is art, and
> should be considered as such. Thinking that art somehow can't
> deal with sexual topics, or that "proper art" shouldn't
> elicit a sexual arousal, is simply prudish neo-Victorian bunk.
Hmm .. not so sure about that. A close-up photo of a couple shagging I
wouldn't call particularly artistic, and I wouldn't want it hanging
over my fireplace next to the Constable. Doesn't mean I wouldn't
object to seeing it, though, but there's a time and place for
everything.
On the other hand, some quite obscene pictures can be very atristic,
if they're designed properly. There is an artist, I forget his name
but there is (?was) a web site by him, who produced paintings based on
publsihed porno photos. While the originals are nothing special, the
"modified" versions certainly wouldn't be out of place in a gallery.
> Not only that, but teens are now increasingly invading
> adult chat rooms and personals groups, soliciting older
> people for sex. Many cases they sign up as 18 year olds
> to abide by the rules of the room or groups, and will
> only reveal their true age in email or in their profile.
>
> I'll confess: I've seen a few myself--as I have always said,
> I only seek out legal-age people. The fact that these
> are teens advertising themselves as being legal-aged is in
> my mind strong evidence that they *are* what they say--
> that would make no sense as a part of any law enforcement
> entrapment scheme.
>
> What kind of crime is it when the "victims" are so willing,
> nay even eager, to circumvent their protection and seek
> out their "victimizers"?
Indeed. I know of numerous cases where an adult has been propositioned
by someone not legally entitled to do so (and a few where the law was
involved because said young person was turned down - blackmail is
alive and well).
> > Your commets strike me as not a little insulting and
> > demening to young people, who are quite capable of deciding
> > for themselves whether or not to indulge in any particular
> > activity.
>
> Indeed they can. Or who with.
Naturally. As they will be only to happy to tell you, if they are
permitted to.
Mark Newbury
I'll get shot for saying this but here goes...
>We all know there's no cure for paedophilia.
Sure there is.
DEATH!
Diogenes
news:RXFBc.8975$bs4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
You're assuming it's an illness; it isn't. See the American Psychiatric
Association's Diagnostic Standards Manual IV
D.
D.
Tate Gerard
Billy, well you are a pedophile and you are most certainly mentally ill
since you are completely obsessed with James, Rick and myself.
Crispy
>
> Sure there is.
> DEATH!
Main Entry: 2cure
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): cured; cur搏ng
transitive senses
1 a : to restore to health, soundness, or normality b : to bring about
recovery from
2 a : to deal with in a way that eliminates or rectifies <his small
size, which time would cure for him -- William Faulkner> b : to free
from something objectionable or harmful
3 : to prepare or alter especially by chemical or physical processing
for keeping or use
Only by one of those sub-definitions does death count as a cure for
anything, sir; "to free from something objectionable". And even then,
I don't think doing that by using something else that is also
objectionable and harmful counts. Death doesn't /cure/ anything; it
would only treat the symptoms, so to speak, not the disease.
There are other ways to combat child molestation, other then killing
anyone who appears to threaten such behavior. For instance; how can
you tell who is a child molestor, before that person actually molests
a child? Or would you want to kill off every ordained priest in the
Catholic religion, just to be safe? Not to mention that admitted
/hetero/sexuals also molest children. How are you to know which
heterosexuals to kill, and which ones to leave alive?
As you may see, there are hazards related with the use of death as a
pre-emptive 'cure' that most people would not care to take. If you
want to kill boylovers, then jsut say so. If you're are scared for the
saftey and well-being of children; then there are simple, efficient,
and effective deterrents and inhibits child molestation, that don't
dip into the tricky business of witch-hunts and lynchings.
If there are always at least two adults with a child, the chances of
that child being molested fall dramatically; although not to the point
of complete prevention. Normally, if there is a parent present at all
times with the child, that child is safe from molestation; although
there are parents that have been documented to molest thier children.
A combination of those two should serve to protect most all children;
especially if both adults are parents.
Another way to almost compleatly prevent molestation, would be if that
child were in public. I doubt that molestation could occur where there
are people watching, although that does not protect aginst a molestor
taking a child from a public setting into a private one. However, if
you combine /this/ preventive method with the other two above, I
seriously doubt that any molestation would occur.
Also; pedophillia does not nessecarilly denote child molestation;
although I assume that you have made the two synonymous in your
vocabulary. Pedophillia is a condition where a person is sexually
attracted to children who have not yet reached puberty. And just being
attracted to children, does not mean that a person will go out and
have sex with them. I, for example, are attracted to minors above the
age of puberty; but I don't pursue them anywhere outside my
imagination, and never intend to.
I theorize that most heterosexual males, who view thier sex-drives as
being thwarted by women who 'don't want to put out', see it as only
logical that men who like men are 'garunteed' sex anytime they want
it; the progression being that men are always horny, and will alwyas
have sex with what thier attracted to whenever they can get it. And
the progression from that being that a man who can force a child into
having sex with him, will stop at nothing to get his rocks off.
For me, and for most of those whom I know personally who are
boylovers, I honestly believe that we are truly trying to help. But I
also know that there are those who call themselves boylovers, but are
only looking for thier next conquest. And I must also admit that is it
possible, however unlikely I believe it to be, that some of my friends
whom I trust implicitly, fall into that second category.
But death is not required to prevent child molestation; in fact,
boylovers can be used for thier help, given freely in both monetary
and non-monetary forms, even if they fall in the second category. If
you watch them closely, and don't allow them the opportunity, then
they can't molest your child. And eventually, if they are only out to
abuse your child, they will find that they can't have your child, and
will move on. And if they fall into the first category, then they will
remain as a supplemental income to the health and well-being of your
child for years to come.
In conclusion; child molestation is evil, but one that is eaisly
deterred. And while nothing can be prevented compleatly; those few
times that a child molestor beats the odds aginst him and harms a
child, they would break thier cover, and be prevented from doing such
again. Killing off any portion of the population would, admitdedly,
remove some threat of child molesting before it happened; but it would
also take innocent people with it, as any genocide does. There are
stories out there, about the hazards of killing people for crimes that
they've not committed yet; and there is not one ficton that was better
off for doing so.
Death doesn't cure anything; it simply removes another life from this
world. And I view that loss of life as as great a tragedy as any harm
done to any child for any reason.
Laurence Taylor
>
> If there are always at least two adults with a child, the chances of
> that child being molested fall dramatically; although not to the point
> of complete prevention. Normally, if there is a parent present at all
> times with the child, that child is safe from molestation; although
> there are parents that have been documented to molest thier children.
> A combination of those two should serve to protect most all children;
> especially if both adults are parents.
I'm not sure about that. Most cases of child abuse are committed by
the victim's parents.
> Another way to almost compleatly prevent molestation, would be if that
> child were in public. I doubt that molestation could occur where there
> are people watching, although that does not protect aginst a molestor
> taking a child from a public setting into a private one. However, if
> you combine /this/ preventive method with the other two above, I
> seriously doubt that any molestation would occur.
There, I agree. Take, for example, the situation in Mediterranean
countries, where children are permitted to play freely in public
areas, and there are numerous adults around to watch over them. While
any particular parent may not have constant sight of his or her
particular child, that doesn't matter because all the adults act in
lieu of parent for all the children.
--
rgds
LAurence
...If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate