I'm probably going to alienate a lot of people but...

[Person012345]

I'll list what I am in other languages before I tell you in english, and then I want you all to ACTUALLY listen to what I say before you judge.

German: Schwule Kinderlieben
French: Gai enfant amant
Spanish: Maricono amante de los niños

Anyone who actually speaks that language, feel free to tell me how badly I messed those up.

English: Gay child lover.

Now before you spout off hate, let me explain.

First, I'm not 100% gay. I just couldn't find bisexual in the translator. Second, I have never, and unless it becomes legal, will never touch a child in a sexual manner.

I am attracted to boys the ages of 5 and up. Now most of you will probably think that that is both gross and creepy. Another list will help: First, I'm 17. I don't care if you believe me or not, I'm 17 years old and a proud boylover. Second, I do not have any kind of child pornography, nor will I ever, I might like penis, but I don't like being raped by a guy named Bubba in jail. Thirdly, I would NEVER hurt a child in a physical, sexual, or mental way. For the same reasons as number 2.

I agree with most of you! Anyone who rapes or hurts or murders a child deserves to be dismembered in a painful and brutal way with dull instruments so as to increase the pain. But I am not a rapist, an abuser, or a murder. All I am is a guy, who likes other guys, and has a thing for little boys. I do not act on my urges. So please only constructive comments! I didn't do this to troll or cause flaming, I just want an open freaking dialogue with people who aren't childlovers.

Thank you.

While I am... Unhappy with thoese life style choices... It takes some real courage to stand up and admit it... And for that alone you deserve quite abit of praise... Again however I cant condone your choice... Live well with your life style..

It's not by choice. What is a "llfestyle" anyway? You don't respect my courage, and that's racist because my Courage is just as good but Dutch, and yes praise ... again, it's not a choice ... and again, what is a life style ?

Hobo makes a good point, if in an abstract way. It's not a choice.

[Person012345]

I read the first couple of pages, skipped the other 64, apols if this has already been covered:

To the OP: The fact that your homosexual and paedophilia urges occurred so early in your sexual development suggests to me that you may yourself have been sexually molested at a young age, perhaps by a family member.

Want to talk about that?

In private might be better ... in private, with a professional.

I will say that my own urges were quite evident to me in childhood. I don't mean teenage, I mean pre-puberty. I was not molested.

I should stop answering posts addressed to others. Just let me repeat: not all pedophilia has the same cause. Not all cases have single cause. It is probably much the same for other -philias.

In my own case, I think the major cause was incidents of sexual and romantic love, with other children, when I was a child. Perhaps I'm lucky, compared to other pedophiles.

Yeah... good advice. Hobos you are a pedophile? I never would have suspected. How many pedophiles does NS have on it? This seems unusual somehow that so many admitted pedophiles would be on one forum.

Maybe paedophilia is more widespread than you think. Or maybe we just like nation simulators. I think it's been 5 or 6 have come out in this thread now. Including the OP and myself.

Also, hobos, you contradict yourself. I distinctly remember you saying you were molested in another thread. Dunno if you said it was forceful, but it's what you said.

Also, I did have suspicions about hobo a bit back.

[Grandtaria]

I'll list what I am in other languages before I tell you in english, and then I want you all to ACTUALLY listen to what I say before you judge.

German: Schwule Kinderlieben
French: Gai enfant amant
Spanish: Maricono amante de los niños

Anyone who actually speaks that language, feel free to tell me how badly I messed those up.

English: Gay child lover.

Now before you spout off hate, let me explain.

First, I'm not 100% gay. I just couldn't find bisexual in the translator. Second, I have never, and unless it becomes legal, will never touch a child in a sexual manner.

I am attracted to boys the ages of 5 and up. Now most of you will probably think that that is both gross and creepy. Another list will help: First, I'm 17. I don't care if you believe me or not, I'm 17 years old and a proud boylover. Second, I do not have any kind of child pornography, nor will I ever, I might like penis, but I don't like being raped by a guy named Bubba in jail. Thirdly, I would NEVER hurt a child in a physical, sexual, or mental way. For the same reasons as number 2.

I agree with most of you! Anyone who rapes or hurts or murders a child deserves to be dismembered in a painful and brutal way with dull instruments so as to increase the pain. But I am not a rapist, an abuser, or a murder. All I am is a guy, who likes other guys, and has a thing for little boys. I do not act on my urges. So please only constructive comments! I didn't do this to troll or cause flaming, I just want an open freaking dialogue with people who aren't childlovers.

Thank you.

While I am... Unhappy with thoese life style choices... It takes some real courage to stand up and admit it... And for that alone you deserve quite abit of praise... Again however I cant condone your choice... Live well with your life style..

It's not by choice. What is a "llfestyle" anyway? You don't respect my courage, and that's racist because my Courage is just as good but Dutch, and yes praise ... again, it's not a choice ... and again, what is a life style ?

Listen, you should learn to take a complement at face value, and I dont respect you what makes you think I did, I respect utopia, and by the way as a catholic I really found it difficult to agree with anything here. Lifestyle is how one lives there life. Finaly it would not be racist, it would be along the lines of pregidous I think. I do think its a choice and I will not hear otherwise, so can it you ungreatful twit.

[Nobel Hobos]

I read the first couple of pages, skipped the other 64, apols if this has already been covered:

To the OP: The fact that your homosexual and paedophilia urges occurred so early in your sexual development suggests to me that you may yourself have been sexually molested at a young age, perhaps by a family member.

Want to talk about that?

In private might be better ... in private, with a professional.

I will say that my own urges were quite evident to me in childhood. I don't mean teenage, I mean pre-puberty. I was not molested.

I should stop answering posts addressed to others. Just let me repeat: not all pedophilia has the same cause. Not all cases have single cause. It is probably much the same for other -philias.

In my own case, I think the major cause was incidents of sexual and romantic love, with other children, when I was a child. Perhaps I'm lucky, compared to other pedophiles.

Yeah... good advice. Hobos you are a pedophile?

This is a hard answer to give.

Yes, I'm a pedophile.

I have some sexual interest in all sorts of people, with a preference for females over males at any age. I'm slightly preferential to people around my age of 45, as opposed to other adults, and my gender preference is less pronounced around my own age.

But the girls who attract me the most (to look at or to hear or to smell) are children of 5-10. Imagine a normal curve, with a peak at 7-8. At that age, I am sexually attracted to about 80% of girls, and 20% of boys. The next-highest peak on the age curve would be adults my own age, of whom I fancy maybe 10%. Between mid-puberty and adulthood, I'm not very interested at all. Babies and toddlers, no interest.

So yeah, my primary sexual attractions are to pre-pubescent girls. Which makes me a pedophile.

I've never molested a child, and with measurably reduced libido over the last few years I am certain I never will. It's quite a relief to be on the downside of that curve (I'm 45 btw). I never was a danger to children, in my opinion, but the internal conflict has been a drag, pretty much since my own puberty.

How many pedophiles does NS have on it?

You need to know the secret handshake to gain that information. And the secret handshake will make you one of us. Do you still want to know ?

This seems unusual somehow that so many admitted pedophiles would be on one forum.

I think the OP came here from some other forum, and Truth and Understanding (?) followed Person012345 from somewhere else. (Just how I read them) ... that thins the crowd somewhat.

[Nobel Hobos]

I'll list what I am in other languages before I tell you in english, and then I want you all to ACTUALLY listen to what I say before you judge.

German: Schwule Kinderlieben
French: Gai enfant amant
Spanish: Maricono amante de los niños

Anyone who actually speaks that language, feel free to tell me how badly I messed those up.

English: Gay child lover.

Now before you spout off hate, let me explain.

First, I'm not 100% gay. I just couldn't find bisexual in the translator. Second, I have never, and unless it becomes legal, will never touch a child in a sexual manner.

I am attracted to boys the ages of 5 and up. Now most of you will probably think that that is both gross and creepy. Another list will help: First, I'm 17. I don't care if you believe me or not, I'm 17 years old and a proud boylover. Second, I do not have any kind of child pornography, nor will I ever, I might like penis, but I don't like being raped by a guy named Bubba in jail. Thirdly, I would NEVER hurt a child in a physical, sexual, or mental way. For the same reasons as number 2.

I agree with most of you! Anyone who rapes or hurts or murders a child deserves to be dismembered in a painful and brutal way with dull instruments so as to increase the pain. But I am not a rapist, an abuser, or a murder. All I am is a guy, who likes other guys, and has a thing for little boys. I do not act on my urges. So please only constructive comments! I didn't do this to troll or cause flaming, I just want an open freaking dialogue with people who aren't childlovers.

Thank you.

While I am... Unhappy with thoese life style choices... It takes some real courage to stand up and admit it... And for that alone you deserve quite abit of praise... Again however I cant condone your choice... Live well with your life style..

It's not by choice. What is a "llfestyle" anyway? You don't respect my courage, and that's racist because my Courage is just as good but Dutch, and yes praise ... again, it's not a choice ... and again, what is a life style ?

Listen, you should learn to take a complement at face value, and I dont respect you what makes you think I did, I respect utopia, and by the way as a catholic I really found it difficult to agree with anything here. Lifestyle is how one lives there life. Finaly it would not be racist, it would be along the lines of pregidous I think. I do think its a choice and I will not hear otherwise, so can it you ungreatful ----.

The racism thing was a joke (a very silly word play on Dutch Courage, hinting that I was drunk). A joke isn't funny if the person it's told to doesn't get it, so sorry about that.

You know that I'm not Utopia-Heaven right ?

And you know that while it may be rude of me, it is not forbidden for me to answer any post.

Being a pedophile is not a choice. If "Lifestyle is how one lives their life" it must have a degree of choice in it, surely ?

Thus, there is no "pedophile lifestyle" and you are babbling and your flattery is spoken with a forked tongue and I am not a twit.

[Nobel Hobos]

I read the first couple of pages, skipped the other 64, apols if this has already been covered:

To the OP: The fact that your homosexual and paedophilia urges occurred so early in your sexual development suggests to me that you may yourself have been sexually molested at a young age, perhaps by a family member.

Want to talk about that?

In private might be better ... in private, with a professional.

I will say that my own urges were quite evident to me in childhood. I don't mean teenage, I mean pre-puberty. I was not molested.

I should stop answering posts addressed to others. Just let me repeat: not all pedophilia has the same cause. Not all cases have single cause. It is probably much the same for other -philias.

In my own case, I think the major cause was incidents of sexual and romantic love, with other children, when I was a child. Perhaps I'm lucky, compared to other pedophiles.

Yeah... good advice. Hobos you are a pedophile? I never would have suspected. How many pedophiles does NS have on it? This seems unusual somehow that so many admitted pedophiles would be on one forum.

Maybe paedophilia is more widespread than you think. Or maybe we just like nation simulators. I think it's been 5 or 6 have come out in this thread now. Including the OP and myself.

Also, hobos, you contradict yourself. I distinctly remember you saying you were molested in another thread. Dunno if you said it was forceful, but it's what you said.

Not seriously molested, that I remember. I might have said that I had sex as a kid, and forgot to mention that it was with another kid ?

Also, I did have suspicions about hobo a bit back.

"A bit back" eh ? Perhaps you would be so kind as to TG the name of the nation you used then ...

[Truth and Acceptance]

I think the OP came here from some other forum, and Truth and Understanding (?) followed Person012345 from somewhere else. (Just how I read them) ... that thins the crowd somewhat.

That's Truth and Acceptance...although understanding fits the mold; an yes both OP and I are from another forum (the same BL forum) but FYI, I was actually here long before OP....I just took to long planing out a post so he beat me to it.

On top of that,theres also three other BL's in our region but they don't seem to be much involved in the game so I doubt they'll post anything.

[Skaladora]

Listen, you should learn to take a complement at face value, and I dont respect you what makes you think I did, I respect utopia, and by the way as a catholic I really found it difficult to agree with anything here. Lifestyle is how one lives there life. Finaly it would not be racist, it would be along the lines of pregidous I think. I do think its a choice and I will not hear otherwise, so can it you ungreatful twit.

Must... resist.. urge to snipe well-deserved sarcasm toward catholic priests and the subject of this thread...

But yeah. You might want to think twice before uttering stuff like "As a Catholic, I frown on pedophilia". Because the Catholic Church not only does not have a good track record on old men being attracted by children, they also have a pretty fail track record about trying to refrain themselves from committing actual child abuse.

@OP and others: So long as you don't actually molest or abuse children in any way I don't have a problem with any of you. After all, if thought police existed, I would already be a multi-recidivist jailed on multiple counts of assrape(if I'd been caught every time I perved the hot young men around the pool, in the locker rooms, on the beach, etc.). Simple attraction is no crime, but one does wonder what life has in stores for you in terms of happiness. I do hope (and wish you) you can come to find satisfaction through a healthy relationship with an adult of either gender.

[Grandtaria]

WILL WE EVER LIVE THAT DOWN, I MEAN FOR GOODESS SAKE!!! For all the members of the clergy, the number of them that fit that discription are very, very low, and if I may add this: It is usally the case victims often do not step forth, or not for a long period of time, if this is true could it be that men of other faiths do the same thing and are better about keeping it quite?

[Grandtaria]

I'll list what I am in other languages before I tell you in english, and then I want you all to ACTUALLY listen to what I say before you judge.

German: Schwule Kinderlieben
French: Gai enfant amant
Spanish: Maricono amante de los niños

Anyone who actually speaks that language, feel free to tell me how badly I messed those up.

English: Gay child lover.

Now before you spout off hate, let me explain.

First, I'm not 100% gay. I just couldn't find bisexual in the translator. Second, I have never, and unless it becomes legal, will never touch a child in a sexual manner.

I am attracted to boys the ages of 5 and up. Now most of you will probably think that that is both gross and creepy. Another list will help: First, I'm 17. I don't care if you believe me or not, I'm 17 years old and a proud boylover. Second, I do not have any kind of child pornography, nor will I ever, I might like penis, but I don't like being raped by a guy named Bubba in jail. Thirdly, I would NEVER hurt a child in a physical, sexual, or mental way. For the same reasons as number 2.

I agree with most of you! Anyone who rapes or hurts or murders a child deserves to be dismembered in a painful and brutal way with dull instruments so as to increase the pain. But I am not a rapist, an abuser, or a murder. All I am is a guy, who likes other guys, and has a thing for little boys. I do not act on my urges. So please only constructive comments! I didn't do this to troll or cause flaming, I just want an open freaking dialogue with people who aren't childlovers.

Thank you.

While I am... Unhappy with thoese life style choices... It takes some real courage to stand up and admit it... And for that alone you deserve quite abit of praise... Again however I cant condone your choice... Live well with your life style..

It's not by choice. What is a "llfestyle" anyway? You don't respect my courage, and that's racist because my Courage is just as good but Dutch, and yes praise ... again, it's not a choice ... and again, what is a life style ?

Listen, you should learn to take a complement at face value, and I dont respect you what makes you think I did, I respect utopia, and by the way as a catholic I really found it difficult to agree with anything here. Lifestyle is how one lives there life. Finaly it would not be racist, it would be along the lines of pregidous I think. I do think its a choice and I will not hear otherwise, so can it you ungreatful ----.

The racism thing was a joke (a very silly word play on Dutch Courage, hinting that I was drunk). A joke isn't funny if the person it's told to doesn't get it, so sorry about that.

You know that I'm not Utopia-Heaven right ?

And you know that while it may be rude of me, it is not forbidden for me to answer any post.

Being a pedophile is not a choice. If "Lifestyle is how one lives their life" it must have a degree of choice in it, surely ?

Thus, there is no "pedophile lifestyle" and you are babbling and your flattery is spoken with a forked tongue and I am not a twit.

I think I may have misunderstood you, when you said "you dont respect my courage" I thought that you asummed the complement was ment for you.

[Livedevil]

Referring to the original post, why did you find this necessary to post? You didn't even ask a question, you literally made a statement and that was it. Are you looking for confirmation? A reason not to be the way you are?

Anyway, my personal view, disturbed. But only because I don't see the attraction to little boys. If you don't act on it what is the big deal then?

[The Master of Worlds]

OK, first, let me say that I'm straight and while I personally don't agree with the subject matter, they're not hurting anyone.

As far as religion and this goes, I have two things to shoot that argument down.(for Christians anyway, I'm not entirely sure how other religions view this topic)

First: God gave Man choice, so if it is, in fact, a choice, it was theirs to make.
Second: If it's not a choice, then God made them that way, and who are you to question that since you seem incapable of questioning your own religion?

As long as there's no child being hurt, I have no problem with their attraction to them. If they (meaning pedophiles in general) ever do harm a child to satisfy their urges, then by all means, lock them up, we'd do the same to any person that raped another to satisfy their urges.

Also, I'm curious Utopia-Heaven, are you only attracted to young boys, or girls as well? You mentioned that you're not 100% gay, and you draw attention to the boy love aspect of your attraction, but not the girl side of things. And is it only young boys that you are attracted to, or boys/men of all ages?

These questions may have been asked before, but I'm sorry, there are 60 some odd pages of replies, and I might have missed it.

[Skaladora]

WILL WE EVER LIVE THAT DOWN, I MEAN FOR GOODESS SAKE!!! For all the members of the clergy, the number of them that fit that discription are very, very low, and if I may add this: It is usally the case victims often do not step forth, or not for a long period of time, if this is true could it be that men of other faiths do the same thing and are better about keeping it quite?

No you won't. Also, I'm nominally catholic myself. You won't live it down because of all the hypocrisy involved, and because the whole system was used to protect those guilty of child abuse. Even those cardinals, archbishops and bishops who did not themselves molest kids are guilty of complicity by refusing to turn in the guilty to the police, even when they knew (or filing the police for an investigation when they only suspected). Instead they chose to keep things quiet and use their moral authority to discourage people from pursuing the matter, all in order to protect the Church's image.

As for members of other clergies, I have no idea. But if they do the same the Catholic Church has been doing in the past few decades, eventually it's all gonna come out to light, and when it does I will be just as condemning of them as I have been of the Roman Catholic Church.

Still, when all that is said, it remains highly ironic to invoke a religious argument to condemn people who admit being attracted to children but never act on those attractions, when one if a member of a religion whose very clergymen have been acting on such urges and abusing children without ever acknowledging their attraction exists. Why, only a few months ago, Pope Benedict said (on the subject of the child abuse scandals in Ireland) none of the clergymen involved were pedophiles, but rather evil homosexuals who somehow infiltrated the Holy Church in order to commit their monstrous deeds. So even in face of overwhelming odds, the highest Church figure still chooses to lose any credibility by trying to scapegoat all that shit on other people, instead of apologizing for the horrible mess his organisation has created.

[Concordeia]

Okay, I'll bite and play devil's advocate for a bit. Besides, I think that this issue needs to be expanded upon a bit.

The whole sticking point about pedophilia

Hey, I've read that one! Macbeth isn't it? "Screw your cousin to the sticking place" hehem. Pardon me ...

is that children, specifically prepubescents, are not physically nor psychologically adapted for sex and that any sexual activity between adults and children would constitute as exploitation on the adult's part. The problem I see with this argument is that children are regularly dependent on adults (parents, teachers and the like) to care for them and give them guidance, and in many cases they are compelled to do things that they might otherwise not agree to, such as school work, house chores, hygiene, and even food selection. Now obviously these examples are important functions in a child's development, so a degree of authority is legitimate in these issues.

Right. The parent compels the child to do various things for the child's own good.
The parent also compels the child to do things for the parent's good. "Be quiet!" for instance.
What can the child compel the parent to do? It varies I guess.

But what about when parents pressure their kids to participate in religious activities, join a sports team, or listen to their political beliefs? These things, too, have their own risks can also affects on a child's life significantly, and you can't tell me that all adults make children do these things only for the childrens' benefit.

If the parents are pressuring the child to do something that benefits only the parent, then I object. Acting in movies, for instance, and the parents living off the income.
But religious activities, sports and so on ... no, what reason is there to think the parents don't think they'll be good for the child ? Save their soul, or build them up so they defend themselves, or learn to nod and ask leading questions while not actually listening .. all these could be in some parent's view "for the child's benefit"

Now, clearly prepubescents are not yet adapted for full intercourse, and engaging in such activity is almost certain to result in severe physical injury, so that's out of the question. But then, the majority of child sexual abuse cases involve non-invasive sexual intimacy, which, at least in my view, carries far fewer consequences than full on sex. Plus, not all sex is about reproduction or permanent mating. It is also a recreational activity and a social bonding activity.

Good point that sexual activity need not involve penetration. "Severe physical injury" is not certain even if it does, and also consider the reverse-gender scenario, which does happen. Some boys can get an erection from a young age ... and some other generalizations there.

What makes a sexual encounter different from the other things you mention a parent can compel a child to do, without causing it harm, is the question of motive. I note you are trying to focus on the effects on the child which is a valid perspective. (With the adult perpetrator presumably in the role of a parent?) But the parents motives for getting the child to play a role in a sex-game are something the child will wonder about. Is it something the child has to do for their own good, or is it one of those duty things like chores, or is it for the good of the parent?

I'm exhausted ... if you can add anything to that go ahead.

Taking this into account, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that sexual intimacy in and of itself is inherently harmful. There's still the potential for adult's to coerce kids into such activity, which I DO agree with. But if this is the case, then why are adults allowed to compel kids into other non-critical activities, as mentioned above? Do these not carry the risk of a child growing up with a bias against people of other faiths or political beliefs? What about the risk of receiving a severe or life-threatening injury while playing in sports?

The last point is new, but I dealt with the point above.

Presumably the parent considers the likely enjoyment and health benefits a fair trade for the risk in sports.
Anyway, plenty of kids are self-motivated when it comes to sport. It must be a dilemma for parents when their kid gets interested in a dangerous sport.

Perhaps political beliefs are a better line of argument. A racist or a homophobe probably considers their child growing up biased against some people a good thing not a risk.

I am NOT saying there are not interpersonal risks involved in such adult-child relationships or that age-of-consent laws should just be changed willy-nilly. Nor am I saying that parents should never be allowed to take their kids to church or sports. My point is that I think current society has a double-standard when it comes to sexuality and adult involvement in children's personal activities. Thoughts?

I'm really tired. I'm not interested in changing the law, nor in talking about laws. The double-standard ? There's a few of them in the typical parent/child relationship, hmm ?

This is probably an incoherent post, but if any part of it is rude it wasn't meant to be. Sorry about the joke.

No problem about the joke part, though I haven't read Macbeth yet, so I didn't really get it.

The thing is, with activities like sports and religion and such, there are gonna be kids who want to participate and others who want to have no part of it. I don't like going to church, yet my parents have made me attend it for years (even though I'm an agnostic), and they still do (though they aren't the hardcore conservative types, thank Go-...oodness). So I definitely feel that my consent has been ignored in favor of what my parents believe is the greater good of religious development. I don't feel mentally damaged by it or anything, just pissed off. Then again, that's just me. There are many kids who enjoy being religiously observant, so there is variance on the outcomes. There is also variance in the adult's motive and the degree to which they will pressure kids to do these things; some really do think it's "good fo da kids", as Mr. T would say, while others simply want the child to conform to their own beliefs out of egotism.

So, putting aside social/cultural mores for a moment, if we apply the same conditions from the aforementioned religious activities and apply them to non-invasive sexual intimacy between adults and children as a recreational/bonding activity, what makes the latter MORE exploitative or harmful than the former?

[Bottle]

WILL WE EVER LIVE THAT DOWN, I MEAN FOR GOODESS SAKE!!!

No. And you never, ever should, not if you have even a shred of human decency in you.

The fact that a number of priests are child molesters isn't the source of the shame you should be feeling. The shame should come from knowing that the Catholic Church CONTINUES to protect, shelter, and assist child molesters. The Church CONTINUES to help child molesters escape facing the law like any other citizen would have to do. The Church CONTINUES to help ensure that child molesters will have access to fresh victims.

That kind of evil will never be wiped clean. That is a shame that will never disappear, and hopefully will never be forgotten. If your goal is to reach the day when the Church-assisted rape of children is no longer considered a mark against Catholicism, then your morals are as worthless as the Pope's.

[Nobel Hobos]

Okay, I'll bite and play devil's advocate for a bit. Besides, I think that this issue needs to be expanded upon a bit.

The whole sticking point about pedophilia

Hey, I've read that one! Macbeth isn't it? "Screw your cousin to the sticking place" hehem. Pardon me ...

is that children, specifically prepubescents, are not physically nor psychologically adapted for sex and that any sexual activity between adults and children would constitute as exploitation on the adult's part. The problem I see with this argument is that children are regularly dependent on adults (parents, teachers and the like) to care for them and give them guidance, and in many cases they are compelled to do things that they might otherwise not agree to, such as school work, house chores, hygiene, and even food selection. Now obviously these examples are important functions in a child's development, so a degree of authority is legitimate in these issues.

Right. The parent compels the child to do various things for the child's own good.
The parent also compels the child to do things for the parent's good. "Be quiet!" for instance.
What can the child compel the parent to do? It varies I guess.

But what about when parents pressure their kids to participate in religious activities, join a sports team, or listen to their political beliefs? These things, too, have their own risks can also affects on a child's life significantly, and you can't tell me that all adults make children do these things only for the childrens' benefit.

If the parents are pressuring the child to do something that benefits only the parent, then I object. Acting in movies, for instance, and the parents living off the income.
But religious activities, sports and so on ... no, what reason is there to think the parents don't think they'll be good for the child ? Save their soul, or build them up so they defend themselves, or learn to nod and ask leading questions while not actually listening .. all these could be in some parent's view "for the child's benefit"

Now, clearly prepubescents are not yet adapted for full intercourse, and engaging in such activity is almost certain to result in severe physical injury, so that's out of the question. But then, the majority of child sexual abuse cases involve non-invasive sexual intimacy, which, at least in my view, carries far fewer consequences than full on sex. Plus, not all sex is about reproduction or permanent mating. It is also a recreational activity and a social bonding activity.

Good point that sexual activity need not involve penetration. "Severe physical injury" is not certain even if it does, and also consider the reverse-gender scenario, which does happen. Some boys can get an erection from a young age ... and some other generalizations there.

What makes a sexual encounter different from the other things you mention a parent can compel a child to do, without causing it harm, is the question of motive. I note you are trying to focus on the effects on the child which is a valid perspective. (With the adult perpetrator presumably in the role of a parent?) But the parents motives for getting the child to play a role in a sex-game are something the child will wonder about. Is it something the child has to do for their own good, or is it one of those duty things like chores, or is it for the good of the parent?

I'm exhausted ... if you can add anything to that go ahead.

Taking this into account, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that sexual intimacy in and of itself is inherently harmful. There's still the potential for adult's to coerce kids into such activity, which I DO agree with. But if this is the case, then why are adults allowed to compel kids into other non-critical activities, as mentioned above? Do these not carry the risk of a child growing up with a bias against people of other faiths or political beliefs? What about the risk of receiving a severe or life-threatening injury while playing in sports?

The last point is new, but I dealt with the point above.

Presumably the parent considers the likely enjoyment and health benefits a fair trade for the risk in sports.
Anyway, plenty of kids are self-motivated when it comes to sport. It must be a dilemma for parents when their kid gets interested in a dangerous sport.

Perhaps political beliefs are a better line of argument. A racist or a homophobe probably considers their child growing up biased against some people a good thing not a risk.

I am NOT saying there are not interpersonal risks involved in such adult-child relationships or that age-of-consent laws should just be changed willy-nilly. Nor am I saying that parents should never be allowed to take their kids to church or sports. My point is that I think current society has a double-standard when it comes to sexuality and adult involvement in children's personal activities. Thoughts?

I'm really tired. I'm not interested in changing the law, nor in talking about laws. The double-standard ? There's a few of them in the typical parent/child relationship, hmm ?

This is probably an incoherent post, but if any part of it is rude it wasn't meant to be. Sorry about the joke.

No problem about the joke part, though I haven't read Macbeth yet, so I didn't really get it.

The thing is, with activities like sports and religion and such, there are gonna be kids who want to participate and others who want to have no part of it. I don't like going to church, yet my parents have made me attend it for years (even though I'm an agnostic), and they still do (though they aren't the hardcore conservative types, thank Go-...oodness). So I definitely feel that my consent has been ignored in favor of what my parents believe is the greater good of religious development. I don't feel mentally damaged by it or anything, just pissed off. Then again, that's just me. There are many kids who enjoy being religiously observant, so there is variance on the outcomes. There is also variance in the adult's motive and the degree to which they will pressure kids to do these things; some really do think it's "good fo da kids", as Mr. T would say, while others simply want the child to conform to their own beliefs out of egotism.

I don't know how to measure or judge that. Particularly in the case of sex acts, which are generally done in private.

It's easier to tell if the parent is pushing their child too hard in some activity out of their home.

It's odd that all your argument are based on the role of parents, and what parents require impose upon children to do. Whatever conclusion you reach I think will only apply if the adult and child involved in sex are parent and offspring (in loco parentis, and ward, I guess, nothing in your reasoning requires they be biologically related).

So, putting aside social/cultural mores for a moment, if we apply the same conditions from the aforementioned religious activities and apply them to non-invasive sexual intimacy between adults and children as a recreational/bonding activity, what makes the latter MORE exploitative or harmful than the former?

I suppose: the potential harm is great, the adult can't know for sure what effect the acts are having on the child (how to judge long-term effects, until after the fact ?) and ...

IF it does mess the kid up, they'll be uncomfortable with sex, or even be a risk to others, later in life.
IF the kid is messed up about sport they can not play it, or for religion they can stop going to church

Which one, when they grow up and have to overcome some phobias or anxiety, which one could they more happily go without ? Sex, or sport / religion / politics ?

(Political phobia seems quite common away from NSG. I blame politicians who kiss babies.)

[Dyakovo]

YO DUDE GET HELP!!

Why should he?

Because he's asking for it?

Where? All I see in the OP he is asking for is:
"I just want an open freaking dialogue with people who aren't childlovers."

IIRC he has since then...

[Dyakovo]

Everybody who's posted in this thread is fucking creepy.

i mean really what the fuck

what's so fucking creepy about my posts?

You're always creepy Junii...

[Dyakovo]

Weirdly enough I can ONLY stand on my feet. Never been able to do a handstand.

I'd give it a shot; your hands can't be that hard to stand on.

Indeed...
I'm sure I could stand on his hands...

[Dyakovo]

i fail to see why this is going to alienate a lot of people.

Because for many people paedophile=child molester.

[Dyakovo]

Look, that last guy is right, there certainly do seem to be a hell of a lot of pedos on this thread, and its sort of a weird and seedy scene that has developed over the last 60 pages and personally I think the mods should have shut this thread down a long time ago.

The thread itself hasn't broken any rules so why should it be shut down? No topic of discussion is automatically off-limits here, so long as the site rules aren't broken i.e. as long as the topic can be discussed in a mature manner there is no reason to close the thread.

All of those pedo guys keep on pointing out that they are essentially moral people with errant thoughts, and that they have never and would never act upon their desires, because they know they would be wrong. Well. I don't want to cast aspersions at any person in particular, but I'll admit to being dubious. They speak about their urges with such passion and candor, makes my skin crawl, and my inclination is not to give any of them the benefit of the doubt.

Meh... I'm willing to take them on their word, and frankly I find there sexual preference creepy and disgusting too. However, so long as they do not act on said preference I couldn't care less what they prefer.

[Camcuda]

I have read your description about yourself and In the spirit of not being angered by it. Why would you open this can of worms? I mean what good can come from this confession? I would suggest that you seek medical help to curb this sexual perversion. I am not comfortable with this issue, However, I must point out that children are never to be looked upon as a sexual beings. People who engauge children in this manner are criminals and must be punished severely. If you were conviced of such an offence, fellow prisoners would kill you in a most vile, disturbed pornographic manner. A good example would be Jeffery Daumer, he did not last long in prison and I am sure his death was extremely brutal. As for being gay, That is your business, who cares? Sooner or later you will wind up on the quilt, done and done.

[Helertia]

I have read your description about yourself and In the spirit of not being angered by it. Why would you open this can of worms? I mean what good can come from this confession? I would suggest that you seek medical help to curb this sexual perversion. I am not comfortable with this issue, However, I must point out that children are never to be looked upon as a sexual beings. People who engauge children in this manner are criminals and must be punished severely. If you were conviced of such an offence, fellow prisoners would kill you in a most vile, disturbed pornographic manner. A good example would be Jeffery Daumer, he did not last long in prison and I am sure his death was extremely brutal. As for being gay, That is your business, who cares? Sooner or later you will wind up on the quilt, done and done.

Whyever he opened the tin, it's led to an interesting dicussion, which was probably his intention in the first place.

[Bottle]

As for being gay, That is your business, who cares? Sooner or later you will wind up on the quilt, done and done.

Cause all fags die of AIDS, and only fags die of AIDS, right?

[2nd PLT]

I have read your description about yourself and In the spirit of not being angered by it. Why would you open this can of worms? I mean what good can come from this confession? I would suggest that you seek medical help to curb this sexual perversion. I am not comfortable with this issue, However, I must point out that children are never to be looked upon as a sexual beings. People who engauge children in this manner are criminals and must be punished severely. If you were conviced of such an offence, fellow prisoners would kill you in a most vile, disturbed pornographic manner. A good example would be Jeffery Daumer, he did not last long in prison and I am sure his death was extremely brutal. As for being gay, That is your business, who cares? Sooner or later you will wind up on the quilt, done and done.

Whyever he opened the tin, it's led to an interesting dicussion, which was probably his intention in the first place.

His intention(If I remember right) WAS to open up an interesting discussion.