TheAgitator.com
Pete Townshend and the Hitler Rule.
Tuesday, January 14th, 2003Remember the Hitler Rule? It states that there are some topics about which you just aren’t permitted to take any position other than the most rigid of hard lines. You aren’t permitted to say, for example, that “for all his evilness, I think Hitler had nice shoulders.”
I’d guess that for most people, child pornography falls well within the Hitler rule. Who’s going to make the case that it should be legal? Or that it’s not so bad? Well, I’m about to break the Hitler rule.
I don’t think it should be illegal to access (read: download) child pornography.
Should creating it be illegal? Hell yes. Distributing it? Of course. And I could even be persuaded — though it would take more of an effort — that paying for it ought to be illegal.
Here’s my point: what if Pete Townshend’s telling the truth? It’s true in fact that he has an upcoming book on the subject, that he’s been an outspoken critic of child pornography, and that he even once published a paper relating to the topic.
The Internet and filesharing services are fraught with wrong-turns and porn perils. As Perry de Havilland has noted, you can literally be arrested for one misclick of the mouse. Yes, you’re free to pass judgjment on those who surf the web for conventional pornography. But do you really think someone should be arrested for accidentally wandering into the wrong Internet neighborhood? Should a journalist be arrested for researching the availability of child porn?
Look, for all I know, Pete Townshend may indeed be a sick, sick man. I haven’t seen all that the authorities have compiled against him. If he’s been making kiddie porn, or selling or trading it, lock him up. I’m fine with that. But if all he’s done is download it, I don’t like the precedent. Especially when the guy’s got a ton of evidence suggesting he had benign uses for what he’d found.
If Townshend was truly an honest activist and flirting with legitimate research, why didn’t he tell anyone about it up front (i.e. his agent, publicist, the cops)? He’s a wealthy man living in the UK, and I’m sure he burns up the phone lines getting advice before purchasing, investing, or selling anything or entering into any contractual agreement… (read: not shy about legally and financially covering his ass) If he was legitimate, he would have discussed things with an attorney first and learned how journalists and professional researchers and cops proceed when they investigate. With his star power, the cops would have let him sit behind an investigator at the station until his curiosity was quenched. Hell, I bet he could’ve ridden shot-gun on a raid or two.
So far, Townshend has told us that he accessed child pornography 3 or 4 times because a) he thinks he was abused by his grandmother b) he became intrigued when a member of his entourage was busted for kiddie porn several years ago because he supposedly followed links with “lolita” c) he has to “know what he’s dealing with” if he’s going to speak out against it. He actually has to see a two-year-old befouled to understand child sexual abuse? or a ten-year-old “lolita” painted and posed like a prostitute? A real “activist” would ask law enforcement or an advocacy group to enlighten him.
If he was mistreated as a child, it’s understandable Townshend might be unnaturally fascinated with the subject of child sexual abuse. But how did he make the leap to EXPLOITATION? Why is he so interested? Does he suspect that his grandmother may have snapped photos of him? I’m curious. And I can’t wait to hear what the A.V. equipment was for.
As I blogged:
THE USUALLY RELIABLE RADLEY BALKO⦠goes astray with a defense of Pete Townshend and his web surfing habits. Says Balko:
“I don’t think it should be illegal to access (read: download) child pornography.
“Should creating it be illegal? Hell yes. Distributing it? Of course. And I could even be persuaded — though it would take more of an effort — that paying for it ought to be illegal.”
Iâm more than a little confused. âDistributingâ kiddie porn should be illegal, but putting it on a web server for downloading would not? Isnât that a means of distribution? It is the payment for child pornography that creates a market for it, of course, so I also see little distinction between buying and creating it.
As to the particulars of the Townshend case, he admits to paying to enter a kiddie-porn website and browsing, but not downloading. James Taranto at Best of the Web today rather pointedly compared that defense with Clintonâs âI did not inhaleâ riff. Iâd agree with Balko that it is possible with one misclick to access material you didnât want to see. But typing in a 16-digit credit card number at an admittedly child-oriented site is a different story.
As to Townshendâs âit was scholarly researchâ defense, letâs get serious. No meaningful laws against child pornography are possible if they include exceptions for anyone with a laptop and a credit card who merely claims to be shocked, shocked by what he sees on the web and then writes about it. Select law enforcement personnel and bona fide researchers should have legal access to these materials. Guitarists should not.
Come on guys, he’s a nearly stone deaf, drug addled rock star…you’re expecting his grasp on reality and social norms to be rock solid? He may be a fool, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be being sincere.
/rant
“bona fide researchers”
Bona fide by whom? The Department of Bona Fidcation? How many years of government education should one need before you are “bona fidable” by the government?? And once you have achieved “boba fide” status by your government, should you be able to access material in a different country or do we need an International Standard of Bona Fidcation?
Bona fide means “in good faith”. Short of reading Townsend’s mind, how can you definitively say that Townsend is not a “bona fide” researcher?
Child abuse, sexual or otherwise, has existed since the beginning of humanity and most likely will endure until humanity’s end. How does restricting public access to information on social ills help eliminate them? If you were abused as a child, should you need the government’s permission to access a chat room in the attempt to gain some insight on why “this” happened to you? What if you were informed that your missing child’s picture was posted on a website, should you need the government’s permission to access that website? What if you have adopted an abused child who won’t talk about what happened, should you need the government’s permission to access information that would give you understanding as to what exactly the child may have gone through?
What ever the problem, restricting freedom is not the solution.
/end rant
WOW. Evan, SpudVol and Radley, you have just taken libertarianism from a logical political viewpoint to religious fervor. Yes, I agree that simply clicking on the wrong site shouldn’t be a crime. But, HE PAID FOR IT!!!! He gave money to some sick bastard that is exploiting children. I don’t care what his reasons, motivation or desires were. It was wrong. Period. And taking a stance that he wasn’t competent or that “restricting freedom is not the solution” is something each of you should be ashamed of. We’re talking about helpless, defenseless children that are being tortured, raped, mutilated and who knows what else. No one should have the freedom to do that, buy images of that, upload, download or anything else.
I am especially ashamed of you, SpudVol. You usually make rational, intelligent arguments. But, you blew it this time. Let me answer your retorical questions:
Short of reading Townsend’s mind, how can you definitively say that Townsend is not a “bona fide” researcher? - Because he broke the law. That would eliminate the “good faith” argument.
How does restricting public access to information on social ills help eliminate them? - It isn’t “information on social ills” that he accessed. It was the actual social ill itself that he PAID FOR!
If you were abused as a child, should you need the government’s permission to access a chat room in the attempt to gain some insight on why “this” happened to you? - No, of course not, but chatting about something if a far cry from PAYING FOR ACCESS!
What if you were informed that your missing child’s picture was posted on a website, should you need the government’s permission to access that website? - You should call the authorities.
What if you have adopted an abused child who won’t talk about what happened, should you need the government’s permission to access information that would give you understanding as to what exactly the child may have gone through? - You should seek professional help from a mental health professional.
There is absolutely no justification for taking anything other than a hard-line stance against child pornography. The only valid point that anyone can make is that it shouldn’t be a crime to accidentally click the wrong web site…but I even find that argument suspect because I have been surfing the internet since it’s early beginnings (1987 is when I first started) and I have never accidentally clicked on a real child pornography website.
And, finally, Evan, to address your point. I fervently hope you are right and that he is found incompetent.
Brian –
You’re right, posting child pornography on the Internet is “distribution.” And I’m fully supportive of arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning any and all who do it.
But I don’t support arresting people who download it, i.e. who bring it up on their computer screens. It’s just too difficult to infer nefarious intent from benign intent.
What if the “offender” has collected a large number of these files and saved them on their computer by downloading them from free websites? Wouldn’t that be enough to “infer nefarious intent”? The problem is you don’t just “bring it up on (your) computer screen” the files are actually downloaded to your computer and stored until your browser cache is cleared (unless you are on some dumb-terminal i guess…).
Wired has an excellent article that everyone should read about a case just like this.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/kidporn.html
Radley, I think and hope that you are misinterpreting the term “download.” When you click on a website, you aren’t downloading in the classical sense. Downloading infers an active attempt to place those images on your hard drive in persistent memory. That’s distribution in any book.
If you are simply talking about viewing a webpage, it is not only difficult, but impossible to infer intent. No, we shouldn’t lock anyone up for merely surfing the web. But, downloading is very different from surfing - in both technical terms and intent.
“We’re talking about helpless, defenseless children that are being tortured, raped, mutilated and who knows what else. No one should have the freedom to do that…”
-Freedom can only exist in the absence of force or fraud. Torture, rape, mutilation, and “who knows what else” can only exist with the presence of force, therefore these are not acts of freedom.
“I am especially ashamed of you, SpudVol. You usually make rational, intelligent arguments.”
-I have never made a rational and/or intelligent argument on this site until the previous one.
“Because he broke the law. That would eliminate the “good faith” argument.”
-So do the cops everytime they pay to get into these sites. Fortunately for you (assuming you are American), this country was founded by people who realized that breaking a bad law isn’t immoral and that any law that restricts individual freedom is a bad law.
“It isn’t “information on social ills” that he accessed. It was the actual social ill itself that he PAID FOR!”
-Pictures of child abuse aren’t child abuse, just as a picture of a car wreck isn’t a car wreck. I will grant you that paying the people who put these sites up is bad judgement at best, reprehensible at worst, but even if you could eliminate all the pay-sites and free-sites of child abuse that are on the internet, the sexual abuse of children will continue unabated. Child abuse is older than the internet, and it will outlive the internet. Child abusers thrive in the darkness of public ignorance, making it illegal to turn the lights on isn’t going to help.
“There is absolutely no justification for taking anything other than a hard-line stance against child pornography.”
Agreed. Limiting the public’s ability to see for themselves what is really going on in the world only helps the abuser (and the government, or is that redundant?).
âFreedom can only exist in the absence of force or fraud. Torture, rape, mutilation, and “who knows what else” can only exist with the presence of force, therefore these are not acts of freedom.â
-You took that out of context. No fair. You get my point. Anything related to child pornography that is willfully and intentionally done is wrong.
âI have never made a rational and/or intelligent argument on this site until the previous one.â
- OK, I was trying to take the sting off of disagreeing with you and didnât search for your posts. What I should have said is that I donât remember you ever having been so incredibly wrong.
âSo do the cops everytime they pay to get into these sites. Fortunately for you (assuming you are American), this country was founded by people who realized that breaking a bad law isn’t immoral and that any law that restricts individual freedom is a bad law.â
- Thatâs a stretch and wrong. Every law restricts individual freedom in some way. Thatâs why we have laws. Thatâs why I canât play bumper cars on the highway or booby trap my bossâs toothbrush. Yes, I am an American.
âPictures of child abuse aren’t child abuse, just as a picture of a car wreck isn’t a car wreck. I will grant you that paying the people who put these sites up is bad judgement at best, reprehensible at worst, but even if you could eliminate all the pay-sites and free-sites of child abuse that are on the internet, the sexual abuse of children will continue unabated. Child abuse is older than the internet, and it will outlive the internet. Child abusers thrive in the darkness of public ignorance, making it illegal to turn the lights on isn’t going to help.â
- This is the most bizarre part of your argument and it doesnât really make sense, so Iâm not quite sure how to respond. This is where you are taking libertarianism to an extreme that isnât justified. The people that are posting this on the internet arenât just isolated perverts, they prey on children for the specific purpose of recording the abuse to sell. Would you make the same argument for a serial killer that made his living by posting pictures of his victims? How about a rapist? You donât turn the lights on by allowing an active market in an illegal activity. You also donât discourage that activity.
âAgreed. Limiting the public’s ability to see for themselves what is really going on in the world only helps the abuser (and the government, or is that redundant?).â
-Nice try, but not really that clever.
I feel the need to add this before the discussion gets too far along: monkey butlers. Now that they’ve been mentionned, it’s safe to continue with the discussion.
“Every law restricts individual freedom in some way.”
No ‘just’ law restricts freedom in any way. Laws against playing bumper cars on the freeway or booby-trapping your boss’s toothbrush are not restrictions on your freedoms because both acts require the initiation of force against another on your part, therefore these “freedoms” never existed. These laws merely protect the other people on the freeway and your boss from having their freedom infringed upon by you. Just laws don’t restrict, they protect. The purpose of government is to protect each individual’s freedom, not to restrict freedom..
“Yes, I am an American.”
I don’t doubt that you are a citizen of the United States, but I suspect that you are not a subscriber to the American ideal.
“The people that are posting this on the internet arenât just isolated perverts, they prey on children for the specific purpose of recording the abuse to sell. Would you make the same argument for a serial killer that made his living by posting pictures of his victims? How about a rapist? You donât turn the lights on by allowing an active market in an illegal activity. You also donât discourage that activity.”
Again we disagree. The best way I can explain my position is with an analogy…so bear with me.
In 1776 we had a country where “all men are created equal” and we also had legalized slavery. We were a country built on a contradiction. One or the other had to go. In the 1860’s the country split and was almost lost, but through much tragedy and bloodshed, we managed to get rid of the contradiction and save the country. Fast-forward 100 years (you’re welcome), and minority rights are still being oppressed in this country. People were being tortured, raped, mutilated , and “who knows what else”. And pictures were being taken. These pictures were kept as trophies by the people committing these evil acts and used as badges of honor when certain groups (klubs, if you will) would gather. Nothing would get you respect faster than a picture of yourself at a lynching. Pictures are a powerful media. For decades “decent” people had heard the stories of oppression but there was no nation-wide public outrage. Not until they saw the pictures. Photos and videos made the stories real. These were real people being murdered and the smiling faces of the murderers were right there for the whole world to see. The public finally became aware of what was really going on and they were outraged. Public pressure on politicians was immediate and change was swift. The world is a better place.
We’ve all heard stories of the sexual abuse of children. 20% of all children sexual abused. 25%. 30%. Just words and numbers to most people. No outrage. I believe if everyone who has access to the pictures would just take a moment to look at them, just one moment to realize how pervasive this evil has become in our society, just one moment to make it all real, that the public outrage would be immediate and world wide. And change would be swift.
Limiting people’s ability to get real information about real problems only serves those with the power or inclination to abuse. This goes for civil rights, child abuse, politics, and everything else under the sun.
And I’m not a Libertarian, I’m an Objectivist.
Radley
You are paying for these comments by the word, right?
Wow, SpudVol. We could get rich if he does that. I’d like to continue this, but Joe Sims has invoked the unwritten Monkey Butler rule. Therefore, I suggest we take the G. Gordon Liddy approach and agree to disagree.
Question here…
I’d check on this myself, but for reasons already explained by Radley (i.e. the possible incrimination from accidentally surfing to the wrong web page) I am unwilling to do a search for information. My question is about a recent (within the past few years) court case that said fake child pornography (as in images that are digitized or photo shopped by the farkers or something) is legal.
Am I remembering things correctly??
If this is the case, it appears that the government correctly places more emphasis on the rights of the child who is unable to protect him/her self than on the material itself. This adds a degree of uncertainty to the whole thing - how can anyone really be sure of what they are looking at?? I’m sure I’ll be attacked for this one, but why not stick with the free-market model for drugs and other issues and let the market decide about the future of the material? At the same time, the government should be viciously fighting against the actual pornographers that violate the rights of the children. Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I think that child pornography (real or fake) is disgusting enough that given the opportunity to be discussed and tried in the free market, the issue will naturally die out (and relatively quickly at that…)
I’m interested in what others think and thick skinned enough to take any sort of attack (except maybe from a fish armed monkey butler…)
As I feared. Monkey Butlers and porn. God willing the two subjects will never cross again.
Paul, I remember hearing about the case you mentioned and you seem to remember the same thing I remember. I suppose that makes it official enough.
SpudVol,
*And I’m not a Libertarian, I’m an Objectivist.*
Well, I’m neither. I describe myself as a lazy totalitarian. Desiring the power to do what I want but too lazy to do anything with it.
Here are three links regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on “virtual child porn”.
http://www.christiantimes.com/Articles/Articles%20May%2002/Art_May02_12.html
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2002/04/16/virtual-child-porn.htm
Now I could understand if Pete was doing a little research or a “misclick of the mouse.” But i’ve read some reports that are saying he had 3 computers FULL of pictures. Thats a lot of “research.”
This whole case reminds me of Gary Glitter. Gary was caught with over 20,000 pieces of child pornography. He now lives in Cambodia. A country that has had a huge problem with child prostitution. Interesting.
Wow, I don’t know. I’ve got to invoke the Hitler Rule. See, part of the beauty of music is the own subjective experience one has of it. For example, you might associate a song or a band or a record with a time and place and every time you hear that/them, you’re reminded vividly of that moment in a way no other attempt to recall that moment can do. The reason why using good timeless tunes on advertisements is sort of a let down, that song from now on will remind you of a cheesy commercial (can’t listen to the Who’s “Bargain” without thinking Nissan car ads), not the most endeering memory one can have. From now on, it’s going to be hard to listen to the Who and not think “oh, this is the band with the pedophile guitarist”. No more jumping windmill strums or smashing the guitar onto the floor of the stage. Nope, the connotation will be a sad, decrepid old man being hauled off by the cops for questions.
Now I listen to a lot of political musicians and disagree wholeheartedly with their politics, but child porn is off the scale. Maybe I’ll still listen to the Who as a music lover the same way I might delve into “Mein Kampf” as a history buff, but the Hitler rule is in full effect.
I thought you might be interested in an update on this case. Many details were not made public at the time.
Pete Townshend is a anti-child porn advocate who was arrested in January as part of Operation Landslide, an FBI bust of a Texas child porn gateway site. Townshend was subjected to “trial by tabloid” which trashed his reputation, but was eventually cleared by a UK police investigation. However, because of the laws on sex offenses his name was added to the UK Sex Offender Register.
A child abuse survivor group in the UK are now supporting Pete Townshend and have posted a petition asking that his name be removed from the Sex Offender register. They are also asking for more police discretion on who goes on the (very broad) UK list, so that it will become a better tool to track dangerous sex offenders.
http://www.phoenixsurvivors.com/Townshendx.html
Many details of this case were not published in the press, and it is unfortunate that the anti-child porn cause has now lost Pete Townshend as an advocate. Also, considering his experiences, it’s unlikely that any other celebrities will take on this cause. Townshend’s fans knew he was investigating child porn for some years, because he published about the results. He has said he first ran across child porn on the Internet in researching orphanages. Then his young son blundered into a site that was disguised as a child’s game. After that, Townshend researched and published information on the
extent of child porn on the Internet, and also information on how to protect your children from victimization. He offered increased assistance through his Double-O charity for victims of abuse and addiction. And also very important, he published some well thought out points on stopping the child porn industry. All this was before his arrest.
The huge amounts of time that police devote to tracking down users of child porn are wasted as far as stopping the industry goes. The pornographers are mostly in Asia and Russia where they’re difficult to get at, but the child porn industry is supported by financial interests like credit card companies, authorization companies and ISPs that make millions off the sites every month. These companies look the other way because of the huge amounts of money involved. After the publicity surrounding Townshend’s arrest, VISA came forward to say they would no longer service sites that offer child porn, but other companies continue to do so. Please pass the word about this, and contact your government represetnatives to ask that they prosecute companies that facilitate the sale of child porn. Without support for Internet distribution, the industry will die.
For more information on the Pete Townshend investigation, go to
http://www.petetownshendisinnocent.com
I am not affiliated with either Pete Townshend or Phoenix Survivors.
Funny how we all make such easy comments on all and everything, while no one of us WAS actually THERE when it all happened - that is one of the powerful aspects of fame : NO ONE REALLY NEVER IS THERE - behind their doors.And why should we wanna ???It is THEIR life and at best they have given us some great times - and THE WHO D I D.
Unlike Pete Townshend never tires to explicitly state : I KEEP BEING A N ADMIRER OF THEM, always, and only last night saw an old version live performance of MAGIC BUS: It is NOT arrogance when he somewhere stated: ” I was sitting around listening to some of our stuff of the 60ies and wondered at how we were SO MUCH BETTER than anyone else at that time !” BANG!
I CAN ONLY AGREE - MORE THAN EVER.
Fuck his private life ! Who cares !The mUSIC matters and keeps me a reelin and a rockin - forever !!!
Guys:
Don´t blame it on pedophilia, pedophilia is just a sexual orientation. Blame it on sick bastards like him, who probably gives a damn about girls.
Most pedophiles dont ever even attempt anything with a child because, they love children. It´s the molesters who fuckin should get punished. (weird when you consider most child/sex molesters in general are sick heteros)
Do we want to stop child pornography? Fine. But first we need to stop child abuse. And to stop child abuse we first need to take a look at pedophilia.
READ (copied from a discussion thread on one of those dating sites):
“Pedophiles can be among the most moral, righteous, caring, and charming people; pedophiles would never hurt a child. Do NOT confuse pedophiles with child molesters”
Not to mention they can be amongst the most mentally and emotionally stable people too. (contrary to popular belief)
So how true is this?
Well, first you would need to read this document about pedophilia, http://www.clogo.org/Pedophiles/index.html, this document is the best ever because is a very impartial point of view, it doesnt really incline to any of the pro or con sides of view. It simply tells what is it.
Basically there are two types of pedos, Child-oriented and Self-oriented, the first one is the good pedo (surprise! yes there is a good type of pedo just as there is a good type of everything out there) and the second is the bad pedo. Again, you will need to read about this in that pamphlet.
Also there is exclusive pedophiles and non-exclusive ones. What this means is there are some pedos who do not like adult or same-age partners, and the non-exclusive are the ones who are also attracted to adult (and older) mates. These ones being the majority of them.
There is way too many pedophiles out there… more than what you would imagine. Sad thing is some of them dont even know it or wont admit it to themselves. But take a look around you. That nice, educated neighbor of yours, that excellent teacher, trainer or instructor your child has, your sons, your siblings, anyone! and they are definitely not the classic “dirty old man in a black robe with a creepy look”
I am one myself and the last thing you would think about me is im a pedophile. I also happen to have the fortune to have a few friends who are also pedophiles and at least one of them is a very famous person.
Im just as successful as many of you (maybe even more having achieved so many different things in both the professional and the athletic fields) i am a somewhat famous person and my looks would most likely raise some eyebrows of some of you ladies out there (yes and im in my 20’s too btw)
I also happen to be a very social person and have many many friends (again, contrary to popular belief)
Through history there has existed this thing called “Designated Perverts”. If we remember back in the middle ages even thinking different to what the system (govnt and clergy) imposed was sufficient reason to burn you alive.
During this same epoch if women admitted to even have sexual desires they would be condemned as evil and too, burned alive. They were, at the time, the designated perverts. (hell, even nowadays they are considered sluts if they do! lol)
Up until the 70´s and 80´s being gay was totally unappropiate and considered a perversion. The gay movement has slowly changed this to the point where a lot if not most people accept homosexuals as the human beings they are. (yet, there is still a lot more to do in gay rights) This were the designated perverts at the time.
Now, the new designated pervert is the pedophile (no, not content to just flag the real child molesters and abusers they flag the true pedophiles too)
The media and society “masturbates” at the subject. In one side parents are not being parents and dress their kids in unappropiate clothes (its just one little example) and in the other side they condemn people looking at them. The media also generalizes in their own ignorance what pedophiles are (and makes incredible amounts of $$$ in the process)
Like it or not pedophilia is like homosexuality and bisexuality, it is just one more preference (and guess what! NO, its not only sexual as you seem to think)
You do not choose to be a pedophile just like you dont choose to be gay (contrary to what many people think!)
Sexual orientation is encoded in your genes/chromosomes and yes, it always takes happenings during life (usually the developmental stages) to trigger these differences.
I know i was born a pedophile (now that im well educated about the subject and even went to school for it) and i also know im some kind of induced pedo too (ill explain this in a bit)
I also know its in my family since at least one close member (an uncle) is a self-admitted pederast.
What triggered my orientation was realizing little girls were easier and simpler to love, me being a young teen myself, encountered girls my same age (i was 12 at the time) very trampy and difficult to get along with. Children have lots of originality, spontaenity (sp.?) and lack the prejudices and stupid stigmas older people have.
I recall this little girl just hugging me and pulling me close to her when i was in grammar school. There was no doubt among us that we liked each other.
Older girls now are imposible to guess. I still practice the same things i learnt in kinder and grammar school, if i like a girl i just nicely tell her and show it to her, maybe that explains why i get rejected most of the time lol
Experiences like this one made me an induced pedophile when i was 13 yo. I knew i was attracted both, physically and emotionally to younger girls (my first lgf or little girlfriend was 8 at the time) -and somehow i even thought these feelings were gonna go away.-
Later in life, without being at war against women my age or even hating them, i admitted to myself i was a pedo.
One very common mistake people make is think children are not sexual beings.
WRONG!
I started playing with myself as far/young as i can remember and i discovered masturbation at age 5 (isnt that sexual???)
I also remember having big time crushes on older girls. 5 even 15 or 20 yrs older than me (my aunty Katy)
A couple of these older girls actually allowed me to get a bit more intimate with them too
As a side note i was always a very mature and intelligent little thing. i learnt to read at 5 and traded cartoons (i would watched them once in a while but definitely not as much as the rest of the kids my age did) for astronomy, nature, geography and medicine books (and no, i dont refer to childrens books either)
I preferred having friends older than me who i could have interesting conversations with, while i still played tic-tac-toe and tag at the park with kids my same age.
So what bothers me is people think if you are under 18 you are a child. How?? physically?? i doubt it; only people with developmental and hormonal dysfunctions still have the body of a child at this age.
Mentally and emotional you will say. Yes. It is indeed possible. Just as it is possible for people in their 20´s and even 40´s to be as immature and unstable as little 7 year old!
Stop thinking and saying pedophilia is being a sexual predator cause it isnt!
You people think too much about sex, sex is such an overrated subject it makes me sick!
There is far more things to life than just sex you know?? (jeez!!)
Instead of yelling and writing all in caps with an insolent attitude you should educate yourself. It helps if you click your brain open too.
“Dooding” everyone and aggravating with false estipulations does not solve anything (this goes to the REAL pervert out there who only thinks about shoving phat dicks in little girls throats! d00d you make me soooo sick, for realz! and you are a hetero male?? ewww … people like you make me sick. Oh did i just say that? lol)
Most pedophiles dont ever even try anything other than a friendship with a child, needless to say they wont even plan on losing their virginity to a child (yes, surprisingly a good percentage of the pedophile population are in their 20’s and 30’s and still are virgins) they dont even push or instigate intimacy with a child simply because… it´s not our decision… kids are such a precious lil things… even being a virgin single person is not enough credit to get sexual with a kid.
So of course, you are free to think and say whatever you want/feel.
Just keep in mind a person you love might be one.
peeze & love to all
p.s.
maybe it sounds like i spoke too much about myself but i dont meant all this in a justified tone. I was just stating who i am, how i feel, and how i view pedophilia.
- some human being.
—- It is bad to be a pedophile? is it bad to be gay? is it bad to like blonde girls?
Is it wrong to oppose to these preferences? NO.
There is many things in life who are not necessarily right or wrong, or black or white, they just are.
There is no absolute truth. There is only what it is, what you see and what you know.
I “dont have sex with children” because is not like im praying on children at the park. In fact i wouldnt have sex with anyone, regardless of their age, if its not for pure, real LOVE.
Some of you get really defensive because you just wanna think what you wanna think, what conveys and accomodates more comfortably in your brain and your way of thinking, and you dont wanna risk the possibility to be wrong —-
You wanna get rid of pedophilia? wow, then you are gonna have to get rid of a good percentage of the population as there are as many pedophiles as there are any other sexual preference group. Thing is they live in the closet because they are the new designated perverts (women with sexual desires were condemned in the medieval times and gay people prosecuted up until recent times)
extracting Brookdale?creature mantel Normanizer distiller?cheater collapses betting styles