Friday, 17 December 2010
Monday, 15 November 2010
ohai
I'll update once a month if I don't have anything to talk about. Just so I know I'm still here.
I obviously can't talk about my real life as that would expose me to too much risk really. Ah well.
I obviously can't talk about my real life as that would expose me to too much risk really. Ah well.
Friday, 22 October 2010
I'm bored. >:U
I should update more often. I decided this is going to be about random shit too, since I don't always have pedo-stuff to talk about.
Though I don't have any random shit to talk about either. >_> I'll let y'know when I do.
Oh yeah, I watched Kodomo no Jikan, was good. It's now on my list of favourite things. Also I'm quite pleased this is still alive. Even though nobody actually knows about it I half expected it to get deleted. ^_^
Though I don't have any random shit to talk about either. >_> I'll let y'know when I do.
Oh yeah, I watched Kodomo no Jikan, was good. It's now on my list of favourite things. Also I'm quite pleased this is still alive. Even though nobody actually knows about it I half expected it to get deleted. ^_^
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Post
I haven't posted anything for a while... Haven't really been in the mood I guess. And haven't had anything to talk about.
Maybe I'll think of something later. But I'm still around. If anyone who does read this has ideas or has anything you want to ask, leave a comment or e-mail me (e-mail in my profile I think).
Maybe I'll think of something later. But I'm still around. If anyone who does read this has ideas or has anything you want to ask, leave a comment or e-mail me (e-mail in my profile I think).
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Getting "help".
I've been told a number of times to "get help". A couple of things.
1. I don't need help. Help is required when you are in distress and want something sorted.
2. Even if I should get "help", there is no help available to me. What people don't seem to understand is that there is no cure. A psychiatrist could not change me any more than they can genuinely make a homosexual straight. There is no medication, save for killing off my sex drive (which certainly would not be help). Indeed, the psychiatric definition (not the actual definition) only applies when it causes distress, or when someone is thinking or is actually acting on it. Because all a psychiatrist can treat is symptoms arising from it, depression etc. And since I can accept what I am, and I have no ill health due to it, they would be able to do anything anyway.
So "getting help" is not necessary, nor is it an option for me. Of course, anyone who feels distressed by it should get the help they need to feel better about themselves.
1. I don't need help. Help is required when you are in distress and want something sorted.
2. Even if I should get "help", there is no help available to me. What people don't seem to understand is that there is no cure. A psychiatrist could not change me any more than they can genuinely make a homosexual straight. There is no medication, save for killing off my sex drive (which certainly would not be help). Indeed, the psychiatric definition (not the actual definition) only applies when it causes distress, or when someone is thinking or is actually acting on it. Because all a psychiatrist can treat is symptoms arising from it, depression etc. And since I can accept what I am, and I have no ill health due to it, they would be able to do anything anyway.
So "getting help" is not necessary, nor is it an option for me. Of course, anyone who feels distressed by it should get the help they need to feel better about themselves.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
The counter-productivity of child abuse
Ok, so I often think about how counter productive it is for antis to do some of the things they do. Though the other day I was thinking about child abuse being counter productive.
If people abuse children, that obviously alienates non-paedos. It's why paedophilia is so heavily outlawed in society. Which means that we have less freedom, and talk of that sort of thing is repressed. From what I've observed, a number of the people who abuse are the type who think the kid wants it. So if they didn't abuse children now, then there wouldn't be anything like the number of cases, and I think society would become more accepting. Now, if their own ideas are right (I don't think they are but they presumably do) then if this happened then it would allow children to be more exposed to sexual stuff and, again, if their theory was right, the children could say how much they wanted it and people would be more happy to allow it. You will always get the people who want to ban things purely because they are "ick" though. So idk. This is really just something I was wondering about on the bus. Just wondering if really, by abusing children, those doing it are limiting themselves and all of us.
I suppose it's possible though that a lot of them don't care about expanding their options and improving their own ability to speak out, and the rest of us who don't abuse. They may only care about the things they do. But I doubt it's the majority of cases. But then I really don't know.
If people abuse children, that obviously alienates non-paedos. It's why paedophilia is so heavily outlawed in society. Which means that we have less freedom, and talk of that sort of thing is repressed. From what I've observed, a number of the people who abuse are the type who think the kid wants it. So if they didn't abuse children now, then there wouldn't be anything like the number of cases, and I think society would become more accepting. Now, if their own ideas are right (I don't think they are but they presumably do) then if this happened then it would allow children to be more exposed to sexual stuff and, again, if their theory was right, the children could say how much they wanted it and people would be more happy to allow it. You will always get the people who want to ban things purely because they are "ick" though. So idk. This is really just something I was wondering about on the bus. Just wondering if really, by abusing children, those doing it are limiting themselves and all of us.
I suppose it's possible though that a lot of them don't care about expanding their options and improving their own ability to speak out, and the rest of us who don't abuse. They may only care about the things they do. But I doubt it's the majority of cases. But then I really don't know.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
I so damn happy tonight
Also, I need moar ideas of what to talk about, if anyone actually reads this Email me some questions or topics or some shiz. Email in my profile I think.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
So I saw some more CP
I'll admit I didn't pass up the opportunity to... yeah, but when that was over I can only really think about the poor girls. I don't like seeing that stuff on a personal level. Sexually it gets me going, but otherwise it makes me feel bad. I'm sure you know this from what I've already posted, I suppose I just kinda have to get it off my chest. I just wanna take them away from those awful people. :( But ofc I can't.
I think on it too much, this will probably make me somewhat depressy for a while.
I think on it too much, this will probably make me somewhat depressy for a while.
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Why...
Does England's defence suck so bad (football/soccer)? You'd think that playing on an international level they'd be able to actually do something right.
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Update
So last week I got to interact with a male-child. Thus half the longing has been somewhat fulfilled. ^_^ Not the sexual part, but the other part. So I'm fairly content again.
Monday, 7 June 2010
It's been to long
It's been too long since I've been around and interacted with kids. It's kinda getting me down. I long to be with some. To talk. To play with them. To feel a girls skin on mine (as in, if they hand something to you and you touch each other's hands, or if they brush past you) is fantastic, and I love that, but it doesn't even have to be that. I just want to spend some time with kids because I love it, and it's been too long since I last have.
Also, I've been getting pretty paternal lately. I want a kid, preferably a girl, to take care of, look after and love. I hope to adopt one day, but that depends on certain circumstances. But it would be nice. I love kids, they're adorable. Even if they can be pains in the asses sometimes, I'm pretty certain the good would outweight the bad. Yeah, I like kids in a normal way as well as the other way. I get a lot of happiness out of them. And I hope I could do the same for them, give them happiness. I'd certainly try my hardest. :)
Just some random stuff going through my head today. I'm sleepy.
Also, I've been getting pretty paternal lately. I want a kid, preferably a girl, to take care of, look after and love. I hope to adopt one day, but that depends on certain circumstances. But it would be nice. I love kids, they're adorable. Even if they can be pains in the asses sometimes, I'm pretty certain the good would outweight the bad. Yeah, I like kids in a normal way as well as the other way. I get a lot of happiness out of them. And I hope I could do the same for them, give them happiness. I'd certainly try my hardest. :)
Just some random stuff going through my head today. I'm sleepy.
Friday, 4 June 2010
Would I change myself?
If there was a magic device that could change my brain so that I am normal, would I do it?
Right now, I don't know. One year ago, it would have been no. If I could choose who I was before I was born, I wouldn't have chosen this, but now it is a part of who I am. It is part of my identity I guess. Though things have changed and I would now consider it, but I think the answer would still be no. I can deal with it, and I can resist it. If I thought there was any chance that I would harm a kid as I am, I would change. But I know I won't, so I can deal with what I am. It's hard, but I just wouldn't want to change myself like that. It just feels wrong to me.
Would you use a machine that made you gay (or if you already are, straight) just because you couldn't find someone of your current preference? Or somehow altered a part of who you are? I suppose it's being... oppressed (for want of a better word) has made me feel as though being a pedo is a defining part of me. Much like how blacks or gays from in the past might feel. It is part of who I am and not being able to express that... gives it more significance I suppose. So no, I wouldn't want to change it if I could. I know I'm not going to hurt anyone so it would serve no purpose.
I should say it's not all of who I am, but it's a part of me. To get rid of it I suppose would be like getting rid of a part of me.
Right now, I don't know. One year ago, it would have been no. If I could choose who I was before I was born, I wouldn't have chosen this, but now it is a part of who I am. It is part of my identity I guess. Though things have changed and I would now consider it, but I think the answer would still be no. I can deal with it, and I can resist it. If I thought there was any chance that I would harm a kid as I am, I would change. But I know I won't, so I can deal with what I am. It's hard, but I just wouldn't want to change myself like that. It just feels wrong to me.
Would you use a machine that made you gay (or if you already are, straight) just because you couldn't find someone of your current preference? Or somehow altered a part of who you are? I suppose it's being... oppressed (for want of a better word) has made me feel as though being a pedo is a defining part of me. Much like how blacks or gays from in the past might feel. It is part of who I am and not being able to express that... gives it more significance I suppose. So no, I wouldn't want to change it if I could. I know I'm not going to hurt anyone so it would serve no purpose.
I should say it's not all of who I am, but it's a part of me. To get rid of it I suppose would be like getting rid of a part of me.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
A theory from someone I know.
In my view, non-coital sex play should not be any more harmful to a child than taking a child to church. However, the child should not be forced to partake in either of these activities if they do not wish to do so. So, if having even non-penetrative sexual intimacy is illegal because the child cannot consent and there is a power imbalance between the adult and the child, why should it be legal for adults to be able to force their kids to go to church under the same circumstances?
He's not a pedo. Anything I say after this point is my own opinion and not necessarily his:
I actually think this theory has some legitimacy. Personally I believe a lot of the damage done by purely non-penetrative sexual activity is down to societies view of that activity and the stigma it places upon it. As I've said before, I think most children would like some sexual activity to a degree, though I also think if you go to fast or do something they don't want then they won't like it (http://peedohbare.blogspot.com/2010/05/age-of-consent.html for my opinion). Though if you did, or if your view is that they hate all sexual activity of any kind, why is it inherently worse than making them do anything else they don't want to? I don't know if it is. I think it is seen as worse, and therefore the child views it as worse, but only as a construct of society. Why is forcing them to do sexual play (without penetration) worse than forcing them to go to church?
The argument I hear is that it's good for the child in the long run. So forcing them to do things like wash etc. are good for their health. But even if that's true, most parents do abuse their position of power over a child for something that is purely for themselves and not for the child's benefit, but for their own. Usually the justification would be that their living in your house and you're paying for them, so they have to do chores etc. to make up. But then why is that inherently worse than making the child do certain other things? I'm thinking (haven't decided for sure) that actually it isn't. I'll say I believe it has a greater effect, but as I say I believe that that is only because society says it's worse and demonises the whole activity much more badly than other things. Which makes the child feel as if it's done something wrong, which in turn makes it feel bad about it.
That's not to say I think it's ok. I personally wouldn't force my (hypothetical at this point) kids to do things they particularly didn't want to do like that. I'm not saying it's ok to do, but that it's equally bad to force them to do other things and that society makes it worse than it has to be.
Note, it's not comparing sustained and heavy sexual abuse with something much lighter. If you want to compare something you make the kid do one off, compare it with a one off in terms of sexual activity. I'm also not talking about heavy sexual abuse, we're talking sex play, non-penetrative etc.
I'm really just thinking atm, I'm not sure if I agree with it completely, but as I say I believe it has some basis in reality. Not exactly sure where I stand.
Edit: It's like if society viewed going to church as something deeply despicable, disgusting and awful, then being forced to go would probably damage a child just as much.
And as I said, I want to make clear I'd never do it.
Sunday, 23 May 2010
Saturday, 15 May 2010
Antis, take a good read.
http://www.attractedtochildren.org/2010/why-you-wont-locate-paedophiles-in-your-area-roderik-muit-jack-mcclellan-marthijn-uittenbogaard-norbert-de-jonge-perverted-justice-vigilantes
This is an excellent article, it's spot on. Your hate and intolerance simply serves to put children in danger. And it's stupid and unfair on innocent people who are harmless.
I haven't looked fully over the rest of the site, so I dunno what else it advocates at this time. My opinions are not necessarily the same as the whole sites.
Any reasonable people who have any sympathy for these antis and believe that we are horrible people, take a look at the comments.
"The writer is obviously a pedo…children are not ATTRACTED to adults. Nobody has a RIGHT to look at them sexually… Children are not play thingies…A child does not want you perverted attention…How dare you think you have the right to support “boylovers”. If any man or woman ever loved at my son, my innocent son, inappropriately I will shoot him through the head…the back of his head cause I dont want to see his/her evil eyes…"
I'll break this down.
Assertion #1: The writer is obviously a pedo.
Whilst I personally get the feeling this is the case, it is by no means "obvious". The writer is someone with a lot of common sense. Being OK with paedos, and not hating them with a vicious and inexplicable anger, but seeing that it's just how we're born and we can't help it does not make you a paedo. Standing up for us doesn't make you a paedo either, it makes you someone who is willing to help the guy who's being picked on and bullied around. Though to antis you might as well be a paedo, since you don't want to kill us.
Assertion #2: Children are not ATTRACTED to adults.
For the most part I believe this is correct. It is however irrelevant, since the article as far as I can see makes no mention of children being attracted to adults. It is focused on how hatred and malice drive us underground so you have no idea who is and who isn't.
Assertion #3: Nobody has the RIGHT to look at them sexually.
I personally believe that we do not have any inherent rights. The rights we have are given to us by law. Maybe I'll talk about that later. For now, I will take the comment to mean either that no-one should have the right (currently the law doesn't attempt to stop us from "looking sexually"), or that no-one should do it.
But why? Our looking and our thinking has absolutely no effect on that child. What if I said that no-one has the right to think of anyone they can't have sexually? So, that means all married men and women (who don't plan on having an affair or divorcing) are no longer allowed to admire any other person, or think anything even remotely sexual about anyone other than their husbands again, ever. Or, for a better comparison, you are not allowed to do that to anyone who you really have no hope of obtaining (Eg. famous pop stars, sports people, TV personalities etc.)
2 Questions:
1. Is that feasible? Could you honestly do that?
2. Why should you have to? If you look and think "nice ass", does that harm someone who is not interested in you? Is that somehow harmful? Even if you were able to suppress that sort of thing, what good will that do anyone?
Though as the first question implies, I doubt that you could actually do that. Paedos are not some sort of super/sub-human entities, we have thoughts we can't help too.
So not only does the "rights" of it not matter since those sort of thoughts are uncontrollable, but even if they were controllable, see no reason why I should suppress myself and push my sexuality away just because some people are squeamish. Nobody will ever know anyway.
Assertions #4 and #5: Children are not play thingies…A child does not want you perverted attention…
Ok. If this is talking about the actual article, neither of them are in any way relevant. As a moral argument, the article does not imply that they should be used as such. I personally would kill actual child abusers myself. I feel the same way anyone else does. Though I really can't help what I am. My thoughts are in my head and I (like most other paedos) keep them there.
Though children in fact do like attention. If I give them attention in a completely normal way (as any adult would) and I happen to get a certain pleasure out of that, again it doesn't hurt anyone and I enjoy it immensely, so the same arguments as above apply.
Implication #1: You have no right to support boylovers.
Ok, so it depends how you take "BoyLovers". It does not mean that they have acted on their urges. To me, and I believe most others, This refers to a paedophile who is interested in boys. I would be a "GirlLover" by that. Though the term I believe can refer exclusively to those who advocate age of consent reform. However, this is an uncommon usage I believe (I could be wrong, I'm actually sort of new to the paedo community, and I only pick up what I see people use online).
Addressing this by using the former definition:
They have every legal right to support BoyLovers. Should they? Well yes, as I've mentioned, being able to talk about it, knowing there are others out there, it helps. Supporting other paedos is a possible wanted side effect of this blog. It helps protect children and helps make life a bit easier for those who need it.
Addressing it by the latter definition:
They have every legal right to support BoyLovers. Should they? Well, yes, if they genuinely believe that it would benefit society and the children. That is really an issue of points of view. I personally don't believe in significant AoC reform, as I've said. Though I know some people do, and I respect their opinions. If you actually think that that is what's best, do support it. Though I would say that it would be wrong to support it out of a selfish desire to do things to young children. If that is the motivation I would say stop.
The next bit I personally find sickening, and shows the kind of mentality of the people who spout this hate:
Assertion #6: If any man or woman ever loved at my son, my innocent son, inappropriately I will shoot him through the head…
I believe it is safe to assume that "loved" was a mistype, as the sentence makes no sense, so I will replace it with "looked" which fits more with the whole post up to now, and makes much more sense:
Assertion #6: If any man or woman ever looked at my son, my innocent son, inappropriately I will shoot him through the head…
I fully understand the whole "concerned parent" thing. But this is awful, considering who they are making out to be the bad guys. You would commit murder just because someone had an errant thought that could not be helped? You would destroy someones life, a human life, because of a sexual orientation that they may well have had the strength and morality not to act on? I sincerely hope this was a moment of rage, however I have seen similar comments on anti websites and posts. It saddens me a little that someone hates me so passionately for what I am that they would want to kill me and others like me based on something I have resisted for years and years, and will continue to resist until I die. This, and the examples in the article, show just how uncaring antis are. No matter what I could give to children and other people too, no matter that I will never hurt them, I am better off dead, because they said so. They are not pro-child as some claim, they are anti-paedophile.
Note, an anti is not just anyone who doesn't like pedos, it's those who have such a venomous hatred that it leads to them to destroying peoples lives, or wanting them destroyed, purely due to their attraction.
Assertion #7: the back of his head cause I dont want to see his/her evil eyes…
Translation #1: The back of his head, because I'm a coward who can't face the person I am about to destroy. Because I can't explain why, I am just going to because I hate them.
I think that about does it for tonight. For any ordinary person out there, just see these nasty hateful comments. These are the people who put out all this propaganda about how all paedos hate children and just want to rape them all. It isn't true, they just want to make you as hate filled as they are.
And in case anyone wants to e-mail me privately my E-mail is in my profile.
Oyasuminasai ^_^
This is an excellent article, it's spot on. Your hate and intolerance simply serves to put children in danger. And it's stupid and unfair on innocent people who are harmless.
I haven't looked fully over the rest of the site, so I dunno what else it advocates at this time. My opinions are not necessarily the same as the whole sites.
Any reasonable people who have any sympathy for these antis and believe that we are horrible people, take a look at the comments.
"The writer is obviously a pedo…children are not ATTRACTED to adults. Nobody has a RIGHT to look at them sexually… Children are not play thingies…A child does not want you perverted attention…How dare you think you have the right to support “boylovers”. If any man or woman ever loved at my son, my innocent son, inappropriately I will shoot him through the head…the back of his head cause I dont want to see his/her evil eyes…"
I'll break this down.
Assertion #1: The writer is obviously a pedo.
Whilst I personally get the feeling this is the case, it is by no means "obvious". The writer is someone with a lot of common sense. Being OK with paedos, and not hating them with a vicious and inexplicable anger, but seeing that it's just how we're born and we can't help it does not make you a paedo. Standing up for us doesn't make you a paedo either, it makes you someone who is willing to help the guy who's being picked on and bullied around. Though to antis you might as well be a paedo, since you don't want to kill us.
Assertion #2: Children are not ATTRACTED to adults.
For the most part I believe this is correct. It is however irrelevant, since the article as far as I can see makes no mention of children being attracted to adults. It is focused on how hatred and malice drive us underground so you have no idea who is and who isn't.
Assertion #3: Nobody has the RIGHT to look at them sexually.
I personally believe that we do not have any inherent rights. The rights we have are given to us by law. Maybe I'll talk about that later. For now, I will take the comment to mean either that no-one should have the right (currently the law doesn't attempt to stop us from "looking sexually"), or that no-one should do it.
But why? Our looking and our thinking has absolutely no effect on that child. What if I said that no-one has the right to think of anyone they can't have sexually? So, that means all married men and women (who don't plan on having an affair or divorcing) are no longer allowed to admire any other person, or think anything even remotely sexual about anyone other than their husbands again, ever. Or, for a better comparison, you are not allowed to do that to anyone who you really have no hope of obtaining (Eg. famous pop stars, sports people, TV personalities etc.)
2 Questions:
1. Is that feasible? Could you honestly do that?
2. Why should you have to? If you look and think "nice ass", does that harm someone who is not interested in you? Is that somehow harmful? Even if you were able to suppress that sort of thing, what good will that do anyone?
Though as the first question implies, I doubt that you could actually do that. Paedos are not some sort of super/sub-human entities, we have thoughts we can't help too.
So not only does the "rights" of it not matter since those sort of thoughts are uncontrollable, but even if they were controllable, see no reason why I should suppress myself and push my sexuality away just because some people are squeamish. Nobody will ever know anyway.
Assertions #4 and #5: Children are not play thingies…A child does not want you perverted attention…
Ok. If this is talking about the actual article, neither of them are in any way relevant. As a moral argument, the article does not imply that they should be used as such. I personally would kill actual child abusers myself. I feel the same way anyone else does. Though I really can't help what I am. My thoughts are in my head and I (like most other paedos) keep them there.
Though children in fact do like attention. If I give them attention in a completely normal way (as any adult would) and I happen to get a certain pleasure out of that, again it doesn't hurt anyone and I enjoy it immensely, so the same arguments as above apply.
Implication #1: You have no right to support boylovers.
Ok, so it depends how you take "BoyLovers". It does not mean that they have acted on their urges. To me, and I believe most others, This refers to a paedophile who is interested in boys. I would be a "GirlLover" by that. Though the term I believe can refer exclusively to those who advocate age of consent reform. However, this is an uncommon usage I believe (I could be wrong, I'm actually sort of new to the paedo community, and I only pick up what I see people use online).
Addressing this by using the former definition:
They have every legal right to support BoyLovers. Should they? Well yes, as I've mentioned, being able to talk about it, knowing there are others out there, it helps. Supporting other paedos is a possible wanted side effect of this blog. It helps protect children and helps make life a bit easier for those who need it.
Addressing it by the latter definition:
They have every legal right to support BoyLovers. Should they? Well, yes, if they genuinely believe that it would benefit society and the children. That is really an issue of points of view. I personally don't believe in significant AoC reform, as I've said. Though I know some people do, and I respect their opinions. If you actually think that that is what's best, do support it. Though I would say that it would be wrong to support it out of a selfish desire to do things to young children. If that is the motivation I would say stop.
The next bit I personally find sickening, and shows the kind of mentality of the people who spout this hate:
Assertion #6: If any man or woman ever loved at my son, my innocent son, inappropriately I will shoot him through the head…
I believe it is safe to assume that "loved" was a mistype, as the sentence makes no sense, so I will replace it with "looked" which fits more with the whole post up to now, and makes much more sense:
Assertion #6: If any man or woman ever looked at my son, my innocent son, inappropriately I will shoot him through the head…
I fully understand the whole "concerned parent" thing. But this is awful, considering who they are making out to be the bad guys. You would commit murder just because someone had an errant thought that could not be helped? You would destroy someones life, a human life, because of a sexual orientation that they may well have had the strength and morality not to act on? I sincerely hope this was a moment of rage, however I have seen similar comments on anti websites and posts. It saddens me a little that someone hates me so passionately for what I am that they would want to kill me and others like me based on something I have resisted for years and years, and will continue to resist until I die. This, and the examples in the article, show just how uncaring antis are. No matter what I could give to children and other people too, no matter that I will never hurt them, I am better off dead, because they said so. They are not pro-child as some claim, they are anti-paedophile.
Note, an anti is not just anyone who doesn't like pedos, it's those who have such a venomous hatred that it leads to them to destroying peoples lives, or wanting them destroyed, purely due to their attraction.
Assertion #7: the back of his head cause I dont want to see his/her evil eyes…
Translation #1: The back of his head, because I'm a coward who can't face the person I am about to destroy. Because I can't explain why, I am just going to because I hate them.
I think that about does it for tonight. For any ordinary person out there, just see these nasty hateful comments. These are the people who put out all this propaganda about how all paedos hate children and just want to rape them all. It isn't true, they just want to make you as hate filled as they are.
And in case anyone wants to e-mail me privately my E-mail is in my profile.
Oyasuminasai ^_^
Friday, 14 May 2010
Are you a Paedophile?
So, over the past week or so I've seen a number of things of people asking about whether they are a paedo because of this and that, random forum posts etc. Some people actually seemed quite distressed at it.
Well first off, just because you found this one little girl or boy attractive does not make you a paedo. Ask yourself, are you consistently sexually attracted to children under or around pubescence? Do you fantasise, do you long to touch them, to be with them sexually? Even this would not make you a paedo. Do you have any sexual interest in adults? If no, you are probably an exclusive paedophile. If yes, are children your MAIN attraction? Given a free choice where no-one was hurt and no-one would find out, a completely free choice, which would you rather have, a child or an adult? If the answer is a child, then you are probably a non-exclusive paedo.
I personally would advocate that if you are, you just accept it. You are who you are, don't feel bad about it. Don't go shouting it around, might not be a good idea, but accept it. Don't simply repress your feelings and push them away. For me I believe accepting it better lets me control it. I know what my desires are so I can control them better. I think if I was lying to myself I may not be able to control it in certain scenarios. But because I accept what I am, I am not struggling with it, I think it allows me to be in control of it.
If you find childen attractive, but they are not your main interest, I don't really know what that is like so I can't give you any knowledgable advice on repressing it or admitting it to yourself. I always think it's best never to be ashamed of your feelings though.
Though obviously I'd say never act on it. If you start seriously considering doing anything you should get help.
Well first off, just because you found this one little girl or boy attractive does not make you a paedo. Ask yourself, are you consistently sexually attracted to children under or around pubescence? Do you fantasise, do you long to touch them, to be with them sexually? Even this would not make you a paedo. Do you have any sexual interest in adults? If no, you are probably an exclusive paedophile. If yes, are children your MAIN attraction? Given a free choice where no-one was hurt and no-one would find out, a completely free choice, which would you rather have, a child or an adult? If the answer is a child, then you are probably a non-exclusive paedo.
I personally would advocate that if you are, you just accept it. You are who you are, don't feel bad about it. Don't go shouting it around, might not be a good idea, but accept it. Don't simply repress your feelings and push them away. For me I believe accepting it better lets me control it. I know what my desires are so I can control them better. I think if I was lying to myself I may not be able to control it in certain scenarios. But because I accept what I am, I am not struggling with it, I think it allows me to be in control of it.
If you find childen attractive, but they are not your main interest, I don't really know what that is like so I can't give you any knowledgable advice on repressing it or admitting it to yourself. I always think it's best never to be ashamed of your feelings though.
Though obviously I'd say never act on it. If you start seriously considering doing anything you should get help.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
My Story
I suppose there's not a whole lot to it. I guess I realised around 14 or 15 that it wasn't normal to still be attracted to 8 yr olds. I was never a self hater, but I realised quickly that I had to keep it quiet. I accepted what I was pretty quickly. I also at that time liked girls who were a little older than me, I went up to round 18 - 20 in terms of interest. Though certainly my primary attraction was towards children, they were far more interesting that young adults. As I got older (I'm not a lot older now, I'm hesitant to say how old. I've learnt to be pretty paranoid about what people might suspect, and who might see and what they might think) it started to fade, so by the time I was around 18 I was pretty much exclusive to those under the age of consent, again with by far my biggest interest going to pre-pubescent children. As it stands now I'm not really interested in girls over the age of 14. I pretty much accepted it straight away. The thing that has been hard and frustrating is never being able to come out and talk about it. However, I have never viewed that as my fault in some way, I've seen it as a problem with society. I have never done anything wrong, so why should I feel guilty?
Since I've been on the internet I've been able to tell some people about it (the first time I typed "I am a paedophile" gave me a hell of a rush of adrenaline) I'd really like to come out properly. I hope one day I'll be able to in real life, but I won't hold my breath. I think it's why I started this blog, to get it out there, even if only a few people read it. If I change the opinion of just a few people from "All paedophiles are rapists and must die" to "hey, y'know what, it's creepy but they're not so bad and it must be hard to be like that", or if I can offer any support to someone who is in the same situation I was a few years ago (that is, who feels alone and isolated, is finding it hard to cope with keeping it all inside and who feels that the whole world is against them, or indeed any other paedos who would find this blog comforting), it will have been worth it.
Since I've been on the internet I've been able to tell some people about it (the first time I typed "I am a paedophile" gave me a hell of a rush of adrenaline) I'd really like to come out properly. I hope one day I'll be able to in real life, but I won't hold my breath. I think it's why I started this blog, to get it out there, even if only a few people read it. If I change the opinion of just a few people from "All paedophiles are rapists and must die" to "hey, y'know what, it's creepy but they're not so bad and it must be hard to be like that", or if I can offer any support to someone who is in the same situation I was a few years ago (that is, who feels alone and isolated, is finding it hard to cope with keeping it all inside and who feels that the whole world is against them, or indeed any other paedos who would find this blog comforting), it will have been worth it.
Monday, 10 May 2010
Age of Consent
Just some quick thoughts on consent.
I believe that generally children under the age of 10 are not able to properly consent to sexual activity. 11/12, I think that probably the majority are still not able to consent fully, but that some probably will. More are able at 13, and after 14 I would say that most are able to properly consent. I suppose a lot of it really swings on puberty, and how far along it they are. The reason I don't want AoC laws lowered too far is because children under that age are too easily manipulated into agreeing to things. Especially when they don't understand it fully.
However, this does not mean I think all sexual activity with children is inherently abusive. They do want to learn about things and they can be taught, as long as you don't go too fast. Which too many of the people who would teach them would.
But, even accepting that, I don't think that you should actually do it. There isn't much that showing them certain things would give them over simply explaining it well, and there is far too big a chance that what you would do would not be right for them. Whilst an adult can easily say "stop" in that situation, a child cannot. Note this does not mean "sex". Sex with a child [who cannot consent] I believe is almost always harmful.
So, whilst I don't think that all sexual activity with children who are not able to consent to sex is inherently abusive, I believe that it should be avoided. They can learn from other sources than an adult.
Also, if anyone does come across this, disagreeing comments are as welcome as agreeing ones, I am always open to different ideas. ^_^
I believe that generally children under the age of 10 are not able to properly consent to sexual activity. 11/12, I think that probably the majority are still not able to consent fully, but that some probably will. More are able at 13, and after 14 I would say that most are able to properly consent. I suppose a lot of it really swings on puberty, and how far along it they are. The reason I don't want AoC laws lowered too far is because children under that age are too easily manipulated into agreeing to things. Especially when they don't understand it fully.
However, this does not mean I think all sexual activity with children is inherently abusive. They do want to learn about things and they can be taught, as long as you don't go too fast. Which too many of the people who would teach them would.
But, even accepting that, I don't think that you should actually do it. There isn't much that showing them certain things would give them over simply explaining it well, and there is far too big a chance that what you would do would not be right for them. Whilst an adult can easily say "stop" in that situation, a child cannot. Note this does not mean "sex". Sex with a child [who cannot consent] I believe is almost always harmful.
So, whilst I don't think that all sexual activity with children who are not able to consent to sex is inherently abusive, I believe that it should be avoided. They can learn from other sources than an adult.
Also, if anyone does come across this, disagreeing comments are as welcome as agreeing ones, I am always open to different ideas. ^_^
Sunday, 9 May 2010
Child Pornography
So I was reading something online, apparently all of us pedos love child pornography and want to make it so we can remember all the happy rape memories. We all also have hoards of the stuff lying around.
Well I don't. I believe that on the whole children can't consent (I think to say ALL children are incapable of consent is ridiculous, people age differently and are ready at different times, but most I would say would not be able to make an informed and independent decision) and I of course think that child abuse is wrong. Most pedos in fact do. There are some differing opinions on how young is too young, etc. but just like most ordinary people most pedos believe that rape is wrong (and won't do it).
Though on the subject of child pornography, different opinions on what is rape aside, is it ok to watch? I mean, what's done is done and by not watching it you are not un-raping the child. And as long as you aren't showing it back to them, your watching of it won't hurt them further will it? The producer will most likely do what he wants anyway, until they are physically stopped. So you aren't necessarily contributing, there is a big enough market out there. There is also the case of pedos who only want to watch what they view as consensual. Doesn't mean it is, but are they morally wrong for that?
However, for me, I do have a moral issue with it really. I won't go looking for it. I absolutely will not pay for it. I refuse to support and encourage the people who make it purposefully. I've also recently been thinking of a new reason - I'm thinking of the idea that doing so and not reporting it is wrong. Now I'm not sure how the reporting works, but I'm assuming it would involve telling them what you were doing at the time. I don't like lying really. Lies, especially about important things, tend to spiral and get too big.
I have actually seen 3 items of CP in my lifetime so far. None of them intentionally. The first one I was looking for something or the other (I forget what it was now) and I downloaded a video that turned out to be CP. I won't go into details for obvious reasons. Before you think that I downloaded it on purpose, it involved a boy, which is not my thing. The second and third I received links to pictures. One of them I knew was going to be CP when I clicked it, though I certainly wasn't looking for anything. Again it involved a boy (I didn't know that when I clicked it as far as I can recall). I suppose I clicked it to see what the fuss was all about, but also... Whilst I am strong enough to resist looking for it and to abstain from harming anyone, I am human. The third one I didn't know what it was when I clicked it.
Did I report this? Well, the first one was when I was younger than I am now, I'm not sure how old, I didn't really know what was what law wise. The second and third, I can honestly say the thought of reporting this stuff didn't even cross my mind until very recently, as I say I haven't had much contact with CP, so I haven't actually thought on it. Though neither picture could possibly have lead anyone to find anything anyway, so reporting it would have been useless. Then you have the final reason, and one of the ways the massive "OMG PEDO" hysteria only serves to hurt children. Why would I report something that would likely immediately bring me under suspicion, both within the community and from the police, especially considering I am indeed a pedo, so I could be in some real trouble, even though I had nothing to do with the images. Especially when it is likely the police would not even bother/be able to pursue it. I would also ask how many people would report that stuff, rather than just brush it off out of fear.
Long story short I do not search for CP. I believe it is immoral. I certainly do not have a collection.
However, I believe I have a way, that in a more tolerant world, may help to eradicate commercially produced child pornography. Not all CP ever made, but the stuff that is done for profit. I believe that if there was a government run system the stored all of the child pornography confiscated from individuals and legalise the viewing of it from that government source then there would be absolutely no need for anyone to buy it. CP would become unprofitable, which would mean that much much fewer children would be harmed by the production of it. You wouldn't get these CP rings with the systematic abuse of young children being intensely profitable, because people could go to a site where they are not in danger, and satisfy their urges without having to encourage the producers to make more and more. Before someone says, there have been no studies which demonstrate a link between porn and sexual crime. Or the viewing of child porn with the viewer committing child abuse. Show me a pedo fapping to CP and I'll show you a pedo not raping a child, as they say. I also believe if society changed so that it wasn't as hysterical as it is, then the continued damage to any children appearing would be minimised if not eradicated. No-one would make them watch it again (maybe there could be safeguards to make sure people who shouldn't access it don't), and the child would not feel as ashamed about it's being out there because society doesn't make the whole thing into hysteria.
Please note: It's only ideas, I don't realistically expect it to happen and more research would have to be done, with data not simply taken from society as it is now, before I decide if it's realistic.
And to finish off, I would like to point out that actually a good number of the people who do watch child pornography are in fact, not paedophiles. There are those that watch it because it's illegal, there are those who watch it just because, who are not pedos. We are not the only culprits. Apparently they don't have the same views as me, and will even collect it.
I guess this is all for now. I will say that whilst I have a moral problem with looking for it, I can sympathise with those who simply can't do without and if anything you can do that will help you not abuse, then do it. However, I still won't condone those who pay for it, they are directly encouraging the production and are funding the abuse of children.
Later.
Well I don't. I believe that on the whole children can't consent (I think to say ALL children are incapable of consent is ridiculous, people age differently and are ready at different times, but most I would say would not be able to make an informed and independent decision) and I of course think that child abuse is wrong. Most pedos in fact do. There are some differing opinions on how young is too young, etc. but just like most ordinary people most pedos believe that rape is wrong (and won't do it).
Though on the subject of child pornography, different opinions on what is rape aside, is it ok to watch? I mean, what's done is done and by not watching it you are not un-raping the child. And as long as you aren't showing it back to them, your watching of it won't hurt them further will it? The producer will most likely do what he wants anyway, until they are physically stopped. So you aren't necessarily contributing, there is a big enough market out there. There is also the case of pedos who only want to watch what they view as consensual. Doesn't mean it is, but are they morally wrong for that?
However, for me, I do have a moral issue with it really. I won't go looking for it. I absolutely will not pay for it. I refuse to support and encourage the people who make it purposefully. I've also recently been thinking of a new reason - I'm thinking of the idea that doing so and not reporting it is wrong. Now I'm not sure how the reporting works, but I'm assuming it would involve telling them what you were doing at the time. I don't like lying really. Lies, especially about important things, tend to spiral and get too big.
I have actually seen 3 items of CP in my lifetime so far. None of them intentionally. The first one I was looking for something or the other (I forget what it was now) and I downloaded a video that turned out to be CP. I won't go into details for obvious reasons. Before you think that I downloaded it on purpose, it involved a boy, which is not my thing. The second and third I received links to pictures. One of them I knew was going to be CP when I clicked it, though I certainly wasn't looking for anything. Again it involved a boy (I didn't know that when I clicked it as far as I can recall). I suppose I clicked it to see what the fuss was all about, but also... Whilst I am strong enough to resist looking for it and to abstain from harming anyone, I am human. The third one I didn't know what it was when I clicked it.
Did I report this? Well, the first one was when I was younger than I am now, I'm not sure how old, I didn't really know what was what law wise. The second and third, I can honestly say the thought of reporting this stuff didn't even cross my mind until very recently, as I say I haven't had much contact with CP, so I haven't actually thought on it. Though neither picture could possibly have lead anyone to find anything anyway, so reporting it would have been useless. Then you have the final reason, and one of the ways the massive "OMG PEDO" hysteria only serves to hurt children. Why would I report something that would likely immediately bring me under suspicion, both within the community and from the police, especially considering I am indeed a pedo, so I could be in some real trouble, even though I had nothing to do with the images. Especially when it is likely the police would not even bother/be able to pursue it. I would also ask how many people would report that stuff, rather than just brush it off out of fear.
Long story short I do not search for CP. I believe it is immoral. I certainly do not have a collection.
However, I believe I have a way, that in a more tolerant world, may help to eradicate commercially produced child pornography. Not all CP ever made, but the stuff that is done for profit. I believe that if there was a government run system the stored all of the child pornography confiscated from individuals and legalise the viewing of it from that government source then there would be absolutely no need for anyone to buy it. CP would become unprofitable, which would mean that much much fewer children would be harmed by the production of it. You wouldn't get these CP rings with the systematic abuse of young children being intensely profitable, because people could go to a site where they are not in danger, and satisfy their urges without having to encourage the producers to make more and more. Before someone says, there have been no studies which demonstrate a link between porn and sexual crime. Or the viewing of child porn with the viewer committing child abuse. Show me a pedo fapping to CP and I'll show you a pedo not raping a child, as they say. I also believe if society changed so that it wasn't as hysterical as it is, then the continued damage to any children appearing would be minimised if not eradicated. No-one would make them watch it again (maybe there could be safeguards to make sure people who shouldn't access it don't), and the child would not feel as ashamed about it's being out there because society doesn't make the whole thing into hysteria.
Please note: It's only ideas, I don't realistically expect it to happen and more research would have to be done, with data not simply taken from society as it is now, before I decide if it's realistic.
And to finish off, I would like to point out that actually a good number of the people who do watch child pornography are in fact, not paedophiles. There are those that watch it because it's illegal, there are those who watch it just because, who are not pedos. We are not the only culprits. Apparently they don't have the same views as me, and will even collect it.
I guess this is all for now. I will say that whilst I have a moral problem with looking for it, I can sympathise with those who simply can't do without and if anything you can do that will help you not abuse, then do it. However, I still won't condone those who pay for it, they are directly encouraging the production and are funding the abuse of children.
Later.
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Oh yeah
I forgot to mention my AoA (age of attraction) is from around 5 to 14 (14 being pretty much the maximum). That is all. Until I realise I forgot something else.
Edit: Girls.
Edit: Girls.
Hmm, a blog.
I decided to make one. I'll probably update it very rarely. I'm a paedo, so that will probably be what the blog is about. I'll just post whenever I feel like it. I'm not really sure how long it will last, I'm not inspired by confidence from some anti sites I've seen so meh. But I won't post anything knowingly against the terms of service. However, the line "We do not allow content that encourages or promotes sexual attraction towards children." is pretty all encompassing, even though it makes no sense. How do you "promote sexual attraction" towards anything? You're either attracted or not. Though it goes on to say things about suggestive images of children, and I won't be doing any of that so I'm hoping I'll be ok. Though I won't be apologising for what I am, and I might say things about how it's not bad and evil to be attracted to something. On the whole it'll probably be a pretty boring blog.
I live in the UK. As already mentioned, I am a paedo. I will stress now I HAVE NOT and I WILL NOT ever hurt a child. I am NOT what is called a "pro-paedophile activist", I do NOT advocate age of consent abolition. I believe it could be safely lowered to 14 everywhere, but that doesn't really help me or other pedos (persons attracted to pre-pubescent children), since 14 is pretty much maximum age I'm attracted to (most are out of my AoA by then). Though I don't have some sort of malice for those who do, your opinion is your opinion.
All comments are welcomed. I would prefer if true antis could just avoid my page, but if you really feel the need to hate on me I won't hate you for it. I think all people deserve equal say. Other paedos are of course welcomed, though please don't fake being a paedo, there's no point. You'll simply waste everyone's time. I actually don't expect anyone to read this or comment tbh, it's mainly for my amusement. But if you do, as I say feel free to leave a comment.
I guess I should stop the drivel and just post this. Here goes...
I live in the UK. As already mentioned, I am a paedo. I will stress now I HAVE NOT and I WILL NOT ever hurt a child. I am NOT what is called a "pro-paedophile activist", I do NOT advocate age of consent abolition. I believe it could be safely lowered to 14 everywhere, but that doesn't really help me or other pedos (persons attracted to pre-pubescent children), since 14 is pretty much maximum age I'm attracted to (most are out of my AoA by then). Though I don't have some sort of malice for those who do, your opinion is your opinion.
All comments are welcomed. I would prefer if true antis could just avoid my page, but if you really feel the need to hate on me I won't hate you for it. I think all people deserve equal say. Other paedos are of course welcomed, though please don't fake being a paedo, there's no point. You'll simply waste everyone's time. I actually don't expect anyone to read this or comment tbh, it's mainly for my amusement. But if you do, as I say feel free to leave a comment.
I guess I should stop the drivel and just post this. Here goes...