|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 6:04:26 GMT
tpfkar You said you got it, just Bryce didn't.  I was believing you.  You're welcome to post the entire sentence (all the best words in it) and demonstrate what other "they" fits. Please do.  I thought I did get it until your latest "you said only one "they" could come from the sentence" statement, which could mean two different things that I detailed above. I already explained what "theys" fit in HERE.I want you to answer this question: "why did you say I was free to impugn the experts' credentials when I had never mentioned their credentials?" I linked to all of them HERE Your "you're free to impugn..." post is the last link. "Porn to sex" is only not controversial in the sense that nobody cares, it's not controversial in the sense that everyone agrees it happens. Your second claim is pretty ludicrous given the history of humanity (not to mention the banal existence of people like game hunters) and the fact that many people ARE drawn to violent video games to begin with. And the kid-lovin' boner returns and they go back to the doll. Where is the evidence that the doll would lead them to the real thing any more than they would've been lead to the real thing otherwise? They obviously are, as evidenced by the various arguments for and against in this very thread. So you think watching porn makes people more likely to have sex with people based on... what? I don't know why you're bringing up child porn, but you clearly seem unfamiliar with the claims made that porn (especially violent porn) would lead to real-life sexual assaults. Yes, and the reason is because it's a similar and well-known controversy in the "claims for simulations leading to real-life instances" arena. You can claim there's no "natural urge" to kill, but I'm guessing that urge is about as common as the urge in some to have sex with kids. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 6:12:20 GMT
As far as them being correlated or not, all I can say is that it's the closest analog we have. I don't know of any evidence that would suggest that pedophilia has a cause that can be cured any more than homosexuality did, and a lot of time and money was wasted on the latter. I'm certainly open to the possibility of being wrong, though, and it would definitely be nice if I was. Pedophilia is not a "specific" sexuality though, like transgender. I have already mentioned it is a "misuse" of sexuality and crosses over into both gender attraction realms. This is a big thread and I have only read a few posts on the first page. I am not quite sure on your stance here regarding homosexuality and from a psychological aspect, we now know that attempting to cure people of their homosexual urges was pointless, useless and redundant. Homosexuality is a "natural" sexual desire, just as heterosexuality is, as long as it isn't crossing into the path of deviant and perverted behavior. Pedophilia is a "questionable" sexual behavior and does border on a mental disorder. It might even be a full fledged mental illness. Can any mental illness or disorder be cured, apart from medicating it or keeping the person monitored in close proximity, depending on what rung of the ladder it falls onto?
Pedophila would/could be considered similar to sexual orientation/preferences (what types one is sexually attracted to), but not a sexual identity like transgendered. Yes, you've claimed it's a "misuse of sexuality," but I have no idea what that means or what you think it means (or what relevance it has to this discussion). I agree with everything you said about homosexuality (barring perhaps the "deviant and perverted" part, but it would depend on what you mean by that). All I was saying was that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that pedophilia is any different in the respect of it being something that's inborn and can't be changed (meaning that it doesn't have a "cause" that can be "cured."). That's literally the only possible connection I see between the two. I also admit that I could be wrong. It's just my (rather depressing) suspicion that I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 16, 2017 6:23:16 GMT
It's entertaining to read the exchange between Eva Yojimbo and cupcakes. Three more pages to go; but I have to take a break. Conclusion: Eva is not lying, and Cupcakes is very narrow-minded. Sorry rabbit, but you really should not insult other posters' intelligence or reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 6:33:51 GMT
tpfkar phludowin said:I'm sure phludowin, it's a real shocker you have the exact same stance re pedo since the old board. Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it.
I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 16, 2017 6:51:09 GMT
Pedophilia is not a "specific" sexuality though, like transgender. I have already mentioned it is a "misuse" of sexuality and crosses over into both gender attraction realms. This is a big thread and I have only read a few posts on the first page. I am not quite sure on your stance here regarding homosexuality and from a psychological aspect, we now know that attempting to cure people of their homosexual urges was pointless, useless and redundant. Homosexuality is a "natural" sexual desire, just as heterosexuality is, as long as it isn't crossing into the path of deviant and perverted behavior. Pedophilia is a "questionable" sexual behavior and does border on a mental disorder. It might even be a full fledged mental illness. Can any mental illness or disorder be cured, apart from medicating it or keeping the person monitored in close proximity, depending on what rung of the ladder it falls onto?
Pedophila would/could be considered similar to sexual orientation/preferences (what types one is sexually attracted to), but not a sexual identity like transgendered. Yes, you've claimed it's a "misuse of sexuality," but I have no idea what that means or what you think it means (or what relevance it has to this discussion). I agree with everything you said about homosexuality (barring perhaps the "deviant and perverted" part, but it would depend on what you mean by that). All I was saying was that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that pedophilia is any different in the respect of it being something that's inborn and can't be changed (meaning that it doesn't have a "cause" that can be "cured."). That's literally the only possible connection I see between the two. I also admit that I could be wrong. It's just my (rather depressing) suspicion that I'm not. What types one is attracted to, is not always legally consensual though and therefore can be a "misuse" of sexuality. By this I mean, not acting accordingly or appropriately with how we use our sexuality. For instance, drugging somebody to take sexual advantage of them without their consent. Pedophilia is "misusing" sexuality, because it is taking advantage of those that still very impressionable and still have a way to go with physically and mentally maturing.
Pedophilia is the action of getting it on with pre-pubescent children, or even just a sexual desire for children if not acted upon. Homosexuality doesn't need to be changed in anyone—even though there are many that would still see it as deviant and perverted and un-natural—where as this discussion is about what can be done to assist pedophiles and their urges. Perhaps it can't be helped and is something innate, but at the end of the day, isn't it all a product of the ego mindset? We as humans have to learn to control our desires and urges if they aren't serving us or others very well. Each individual needs to take responsibility for these actions and we know that homosexuality comes with the package; but this is not a dark aspect of a persons being like it was believed to be and was conditioned to be oppressed within.
Pedophilic behavior can only really be cured by those that desire or engage in it at the end of the day. If they can't, or don't want to grow and change, then so be it. Something is not going to go away just because we want it to, and that accounts for pretty much everything in this world and how it operates.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 16, 2017 7:04:58 GMT
I'm sure phludowin, it's a real shocker you have the exact same stance re pedo since the old board. Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it. Thanks for proving my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:06:43 GMT
Pedophila would/could be considered similar to sexual orientation/preferences (what types one is sexually attracted to), but not a sexual identity like transgendered. Yes, you've claimed it's a "misuse of sexuality," but I have no idea what that means or what you think it means (or what relevance it has to this discussion). I agree with everything you said about homosexuality (barring perhaps the "deviant and perverted" part, but it would depend on what you mean by that). All I was saying was that there is no evidence, as far as I know, that pedophilia is any different in the respect of it being something that's inborn and can't be changed (meaning that it doesn't have a "cause" that can be "cured."). That's literally the only possible connection I see between the two. I also admit that I could be wrong. It's just my (rather depressing) suspicion that I'm not. What types one is attracted to, is not always legally consensual though and therefore can be a "misuse" of sexuality. By this I mean, not acting accordingly or appropriately with how we use our sexuality. For instance, drugging somebody to take sexual advantage of them without their consent. Pedophilia is "misusing" sexuality, because it is taking advantage of those that still very impressionable and still have a way to go with physically and mentally maturing. OK, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if I like the term "misuse of sexuality," but I understand what you're saying and agree with it. Child abuse/rape is the actual act of getting it on with children; pedophilia is just the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I agree homosexuality doesn't need to be changed and is absolutely fine; but for years people thought it "deviant" and thus tried to "cure it" as if it was a disease. That attempt was a massive failure, and I can't help but suspect it would equally be a failure with pedophilia. Given that, I think it would be more productive to find safe outlets and, barring that, some "treatment" programs that are more about redirecting that energy into other activities and counceling as opposed to trying to "cure/change" it (which I don't think will work). Yes, most of us have certain urges and desires we have to control, from those innocuous as "I'd like to eat an entire box of cookies" to those as dangerous as "I'd really like to kill this person right now." The urges/desires we have to resist will depend on the person. But as someone who tremendously enjoys my own sexuality, I can only imagine how miserable I'd be if there was immense social pressure and even laws trying to prevent me from enjoying it, whether by myself or with adult women (my own orientation); and it would be even worse to know that this desire was somehow harmful to those I was attracted to. While it's absolutely true our first concern and sympathies should be for the children (the potential and actual victims), it also shouldn't be too hard to imagine the other side of the coin as well and think that sympathetic treatments (in the form of safe outlets or aforementioned programs) would be preferable to the horrendous things that homosexuals were subjected to for years. Of course, this kind of thinking doesn't work in those for whom sympathy is a zero-sum game (the more you have for one side, the less you must have for the other). I've never thought that way and frankly never understood that way of thinking either. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:10:59 GMT
I'm sure phludowin, it's a real shocker you have the exact same stance re pedo since the old board. Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it. Thanks for proving my point. Seriously: "Maybe you and eva can break 18-month baby over it." What kind of sick fuck says that based on the actual disagreements in this thread? I don't know what it's going to take for everyone on this board, regardless of what "side" they're on, to realize that rabbit can be and often is as big an idiot as the Ada/Blade/Erjen brigade. He just usually puts up a better front for a bit longer before it's revealed. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 7:24:51 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:Because the sick f!cks of reality. Those that want 4 year-olds to be fodder for adult predators and those that advocate the wilful termination of 18 month-old toddlers. You guys is what you is. Edit: and the board begs begin. How long for a slew of ops? Only the pedos know(s). 
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 16, 2017 7:27:52 GMT
OK, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if I like the term "misuse of sexuality," but I understand what you're saying and agree with it. Child abuse/rape is the actual act of getting it on with children; pedophilia is just the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I agree homosexuality doesn't need to be changed and is absolutely fine; but for years people thought it "deviant" and thus tried to "cure it" as if it was a disease. That attempt was a massive failure, and I can't help but suspect it would equally be a failure with pedophilia. Given that, I think it would be more productive to find safe outlets and, barring that, some "treatment" programs that are more about redirecting that energy into other activities and counceling as opposed to trying to "cure/change" it (which I don't think will work). Yes, most of us have certain urges and desires we have to control, from those innocuous as "I'd like to eat an entire box of cookies" to those as dangerous as "I'd really like to kill this person right now." The urges/desires we have to resist will depend on the person. But as someone who tremendously enjoys my own sexuality, I can only imagine how miserable I'd be if there was immense social pressure and even laws trying to prevent me from enjoying it, whether by myself or with adult women (my own orientation); and it would be even worse to know that this desire was somehow harmful to those I was attracted to. While it's absolutely true our first concern and sympathies should be for the children (the potential and actual victims), it also shouldn't be too hard to imagine the other side of the coin as well and think that sympathetic treatments (in the form of safe outlets or aforementioned programs) would be preferable to the horrendous things that homosexuals were subjected to for years. Of course, this kind of thinking doesn't work in those for whom sympathy is a zero-sum game (the more you have for one side, the less you must have for the other). I've never thought that way and frankly never understood that way of thinking either. I wouldn't know how else to label it, other than a "misuse" of sexuality. What else can it be? I am taking this term from the Vedas however, and the do's and don'ts Yamas\Niyamas of leading a productive life.
Isn't it really a matter of semantics though, to compartmentalize the abuse\rape of children, from just pedophilia being the desire? If the action is acted out upon, then most would understandably consider it pedophilic behavior and the term pedophile would be attributed as such.
I think a compassionate approach to any malady or mental illness that can't be understood is the best approach; but I think people really need to fight for their own sanity as well and no-one else can really do this except themselves. Some may not have the cognitive ability to do this though, but regards to sexual desire in adults for children, like I have already mentioned earlier, is there a pattern in this behavior, from how these people are brought up and conditioned and from what socio-economic background is it more prevalent? Quick fixes just won't cut it, until the root cause is uncovered and addressed.
It is also nice to read your level-headed and compassionate comments about homosexuality, from a heterosexual male.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:29:30 GMT
tpfkar Those that want 4 year-olds to be fodder for adult predators and those that advocate the wilful termination of 18 month-old toddlers. Neither of which describe me. So your "you and eva can break 18-month baby over it." is just ridiculously disgusting. And there was no "beg." I was responding to what phludowin said. Of course, I'm sure in rabbit-language/logic world, wondering what it's going to take for everyone to realize you're an idiot in response to one of your most idiotic statements is me actually begging everyone to realize you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 7:30:34 GMT
It's entertaining to read the exchange between Eva Yojimbo and cupcakes . Three more pages to go; but I have to take a break. Conclusion: Eva is not lying, and Cupcakes is very narrow-minded. Sorry rabbit, but you really should not insult other posters' intelligence or reading comprehension. I would say that Rabbit has made statements that are based on emotions that give Eva an upperhand in this debate. In any case I do agree that Eva has not lied anywhere as far as I am concerned. Statements such as "Anyone that can envision 4 year-olds or any prepubescents in general as sex objects certainly is [pedo]." JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies never claimed to be a pedo. He claimed to support consent based sex between adults & children (which is an extremely stupid stance in itself), but it is not impossible for one to support such a position without being paedophile. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 7:33:32 GMT
OK, that's fair enough. I'm not sure if I like the term "misuse of sexuality," but I understand what you're saying and agree with it. Child abuse/rape is the actual act of getting it on with children; pedophilia is just the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I agree homosexuality doesn't need to be changed and is absolutely fine; but for years people thought it "deviant" and thus tried to "cure it" as if it was a disease. That attempt was a massive failure, and I can't help but suspect it would equally be a failure with pedophilia. Given that, I think it would be more productive to find safe outlets and, barring that, some "treatment" programs that are more about redirecting that energy into other activities and counceling as opposed to trying to "cure/change" it (which I don't think will work). Yes, most of us have certain urges and desires we have to control, from those innocuous as "I'd like to eat an entire box of cookies" to those as dangerous as "I'd really like to kill this person right now." The urges/desires we have to resist will depend on the person. But as someone who tremendously enjoys my own sexuality, I can only imagine how miserable I'd be if there was immense social pressure and even laws trying to prevent me from enjoying it, whether by myself or with adult women (my own orientation); and it would be even worse to know that this desire was somehow harmful to those I was attracted to. While it's absolutely true our first concern and sympathies should be for the children (the potential and actual victims), it also shouldn't be too hard to imagine the other side of the coin as well and think that sympathetic treatments (in the form of safe outlets or aforementioned programs) would be preferable to the horrendous things that homosexuals were subjected to for years. Of course, this kind of thinking doesn't work in those for whom sympathy is a zero-sum game (the more you have for one side, the less you must have for the other). I've never thought that way and frankly never understood that way of thinking either. I wouldn't know how else to label it, other than a "misuse" of sexuality. What else can it be? I am taking this term from the Vedas however, and the do's and don'ts Yamas\Niyamas of leading a productive life.
Isn't it really a matter of semantics though, to compartmentalize the abuse\rape of children, from just pedophilia being the desire? If the action is acted out upon, then most would understandably consider it pedophilic behavior and the term pedophile would be attributed as such.
I think a compassionate approach to any malady or mental illness that can't be understood is the best approach; but I think people really need to fight for their own sanity as well and no-one else can really do this except themselves. Some may not have the cognitive ability to do this though, but regards to sexual desire in adults for children, like I have already mentioned earlier, is their a pattern in this behavior, from how these people are brought up and conditioned and from what socio-economic background is it more prevalent? Quick fixes just won't cut it, until the root cause is uncovered.
It is also nice to read your level-headed and compassionate comments about homosexuality, from a heterosexual male.
I think "sexual deviancy" covers it better. Misuse just sounds... odd to me. It's more than just semantics. There's a huge difference in just being attracted to children VS the actual abuse/raping of children. There are many pedophiles who can control their urges and they should be praised rather than condemned because of an attraction they didn't have any control over. I pretty much agree with your entire third paragraph, and if there is any cause that could be found (and cured), I'd certainly like to know about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 16, 2017 7:51:14 GMT
I wouldn't know how else to label it, other than a "misuse" of sexuality. What else can it be? I am taking this term from the Vedas however, and the do's and don'ts Yamas\Niyamas of leading a productive life.
Isn't it really a matter of semantics though, to compartmentalize the abuse\rape of children, from just pedophilia being the desire? If the action is acted out upon, then most would understandably consider it pedophilic behavior and the term pedophile would be attributed as such.
I think a compassionate approach to any malady or mental illness that can't be understood is the best approach; but I think people really need to fight for their own sanity as well and no-one else can really do this except themselves. Some may not have the cognitive ability to do this though, but regards to sexual desire in adults for children, like I have already mentioned earlier, is their a pattern in this behavior, from how these people are brought up and conditioned and from what socio-economic background is it more prevalent? Quick fixes just won't cut it, until the root cause is uncovered.
It is also nice to read your level-headed and compassionate comments about homosexuality, from a heterosexual male.
I think "sexual deviancy" covers it better. Misuse just sounds... odd to me. It's more than just semantics. There's a huge difference in just being attracted to children VS the actual abuse/raping of children. There are many pedophiles who can control their urges and they should be praised rather than condemned because of an attraction they didn't have any control over. I pretty much agree with your entire third paragraph, and if there is any cause that could be found (and cured), I'd certainly like to know about it.
I think "misuse" is a more gentler or generic sounding term and can cover many spectrums with how we use the gift of sexuality. It wouldn't be sexual deviancy if it was a woman using her sexuality to get what she wants out of a male, only perhaps manipulation, but it could still be a misuse if a self-serving agenda is on the table.
Many pedophiles who do control their urges, yet if their desires are still known, human nature will still be very wary and being as it is, they will "unfortunately" condemn as deviant.
Quite frankly, it is not something I really ponder about or tear my hair out over—what little left of it there is—for something that is out of my, or even others control. It is really just wasted energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:00:33 GMT
I think "sexual deviancy" covers it better. Misuse just sounds... odd to me. It's more than just semantics. There's a huge difference in just being attracted to children VS the actual abuse/raping of children. There are many pedophiles who can control their urges and they should be praised rather than condemned because of an attraction they didn't have any control over. I pretty much agree with your entire third paragraph, and if there is any cause that could be found (and cured), I'd certainly like to know about it.
I think "misuse" is a more gentler or generic sounding term and can cover many spectrums with how we use the gift of sexuality. It wouldn't be sexual deviancy if it was a woman using her sexuality to get what she wants out of a male, only perhaps manipulation, but it could still be a misuse if a self-serving agenda is on the table.
Many pedophiles who do control their urges, yet if their desires are still known, human nature will still be very wary and being as it is, they will "unfortunately" condemn as deviant.
Quite frankly, it is not something I really ponder about or tear my hair out over—what little left of it there is—for something that is out of my, or even others control. It is really just wasted energy. It's perhaps just because it's not a common term you hear that it sounds odd, but I can't disagree with the virtues you ascribe to. I agree that it would be human nature to be wary of such a thing, but I was just thinking of it more abstractly as in "we should praise pedophiles who control their urges" rather than praising any specific pedophile who seems to be controlling it for now. Indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 8:01:49 GMT
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies never claimed to be a pedo. We're all discussing Eddie like he's not here
I had edited my post before you commented on it. I know he was the person who posts under the name you mentioned as when I was mod I could see his email address by that name. I am not sure he wanted to reveal that he is the same person as once Appolo asked him if he were him then he declined to answer when he had initially joined this board. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:04:58 GMT
We're all discussing Eddie like he's not here
I had edited my post before you commented on it. I know he was the person who posts under the name you mentioned as when I was mod I could see his email address by that name. I am not sure he wanted to reveal that he is the same person as once Appolo asked him if he were him then he declined to answer when he initially joined this board. Ah, well, I can edit/delete my post too if you think it best. I had suspected he was Eddie for a while and then when he posted his "consent criteria" it basically sealed it for me (and I imagine it would for anyone who was familiar with it from IMDb). EDIT: I'll just delete it anyway since it's not really important. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jul 16, 2017 8:08:42 GMT
^ Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 16, 2017 8:09:24 GMT
Cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 16, 2017 8:13:36 GMT
tpfkar Topline: none of the surrounding wankery escapes the advocates criteria + criteria subject 4 year-olds to sexual use by adults. Nor the community service for rape thing. Eva Yojimbo said:You and your 4 year-old foddering, and him and his 18 month toddler killing are definitely ridiculously disgusting. Regardless of how clinically you want to fodderize them. I'm not really too concerned about evagal logic world where advocating a system that offers up 4 year-olds for use by predator adults is not advocating offering up 4 year-olds for use by predator adults, nor the various similar-minded child-consuming types of this board.
Deez: "Feel the same way I do or there is something wrong with you."
Meez: If you think 4 year-olds can be f!ckable, or that anything done to infants could be called "sexual relations", as you do both, then there is something very wrong with you.
Deez: And yet you attempt to deny being an objectivist. |
|
