Paedophiles on UK Indymedia

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
rasputin
Offline
Joined: 30-01-05
Jul 25 2007 22:02
Paedophiles on UK Indymedia

Free Speech Must Be Free

Quote:
Many LGBT organisations refuse to support those who are attracted to children, regardless of whether those minor-attracted people are offenders. Sexual minorities should work together to prevent discrimination and promote equality. While sex with childen is wrong and rightly condemned, the mere attraction of paedophilia is harmless. Are the LGBT organisations to blame for ditching past allies, or is this the fault of governmental organisations?
Quote:
Now, in order to investigate all possibilities for this unacceptable level of hatred, one must also consider the possibility that many LGBT people genuinely do hate paedophiles. This hatred is highly hypocritical when one considers that, at their roots, both paedophilia and homosexuality are equally harmless attractions which should not be subjected to moral analysis.

[...]

One of the ironies of this situation is that - although little research has been conducted in the area (for reasons of political correctness) - it is likely that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked. It is estimated that around 11% of the population of the developed, adult-attracted world is homosexual. The prevalence of same-gender attraction within the paedophile community is much greater.

angry

admin - thread title changed from "UK Indymedia - platform for paedophiles"

Terry
Offline
Joined: 1-02-06
Jul 25 2007 22:39

Take it up with indymedia uk, surely if it breaches guidelines it will be removed..being that this is unusual in fairness one wouldn't sit down and think 'oh we need a guideline on rights for paedos postings' until the event - a posting of such a story - had actually happened, if it breaches guidelines on other grounds - as is suggested on the indymedia uk thread - then they should remove it, if it doesn't and they don't, get on their mailing list and advocate the development of such a guideline, as this is now an issue - ie there is a precedent for such a story.

yuda
Offline
Joined: 4-12-04
Jul 25 2007 22:48

If they are smart they will have a catch all guidline. When we set up Aotearoa Indymedia I was very vocal that such a guideline was included. It hasn't to my knowledge been used very often but it has been handy on the odd occasion.

David in Atlanta
Offline
Joined: 21-04-06
Jul 26 2007 00:44

The original article is hidden. The discussion isn't. Sound editing I think
Being newswire editor for an indymedia site is a thankless task, I know having done it.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Jul 26 2007 01:28
David in Atlanta wrote:
The original article is hidden. The discussion isn't. Sound editing I think
Being newswire editor for an indymedia site is a thankless task, I know having done it.

Yeah i think you are right .

But i suspect JonnyT is expressing outrage at that whole offensive article and the bolded bits in particular - how dare anyone say this????? Paedo activists working "hand in hand" with homosexual activists?? No legitimate homosexual activist would sully themselves in this way...Since when?? How dare someone compare homosexuality with paedophilia..

JonnyT solidarity to you mate..

I will take your angry and raise you twisted twisted twisted

Love

LW X

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 26 2007 09:23

If they hid the article, this thread title is probably unnecessarily inflammatory, so we should edit it. That ok?

Thrashing_chomsky
Offline
Joined: 3-06-07
Jul 26 2007 13:57

I'll see your twisted twisted twisted and raise you one

I'm going to hunt the cunt.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 15:28
JonnyT wrote:

One of the ironies of this situation is that - although little research has been conducted in the area (for reasons of political correctness) - it is likely that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked. It is estimated that around 11% of the population of the developed, adult-attracted world is homosexual. The prevalence of same-gender attraction within the paedophile community is much greater.

"Linked?!?" This is a total load of bullshit.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Jul 26 2007 16:33

Bullshit yes, but it wes a line that pushed in the mid seventies quite alot. Interestingly a guy (who's name i just can't remember at the moment unfortunately) editored a book albout how paedophillia was the last taboo and would one day be seen that paedos were a oppressed minority. He eventually became a director of social services and was a member of PIE.
Indymedia has such a high volume of traffic it oftens takes awhile before this sort of post gets spootted. Usyually someone has to point it out.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 16:37
JonnyT wrote:
It is estimated that around 11% of the population of the developed, adult-attracted world is homosexual. The prevalence of same-gender attraction within the paedophile community is much greater.

Ugh, this is also a load of shit as well. By far, the majority of paedophiles are straight men.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 16:47

Hm, I see that, I just think it is intentonally phrased to be interpretted differently than that. Also should be noted that paedophilia/incest between a man and a girl is massively underreported.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 16:56
revol68 wrote:

there is also the fact that children are somewhat 'genderless', i'm sure many paedo's who don't fancy men fancy young boys.

True.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 26 2007 17:02

i dont think paedophilia is a sexual orientation (fancying children, whether boys or girls). its about having power over people and manipulating or forcing them to do stuff.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 17:27

I agree; I don't think of it as a sexual orientation either. I wouldn't consider them "sexual minorities" any more than I think "rapist" is a sexual orientation. Bizarre argument. Should not be tied to homos, nor to straight folks who practice kink. It isn't connected.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Jul 26 2007 17:33
Quote:
I wouldn't consider them "sexual minorities" any more than I think "rapist" is a sexual orientation.

thats what i was trying to say but you put it better smile

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 18:56
revol68 wrote:
eh i'm afraid youse are full of shite, because it is about sex, it may be a sexuality that involves an uneven power dynamic and be damaging to the 'other' but it is a sexuality. I mean what basis are you using to decide sexuality, what is the template? Is BDSM part of sexuality, fetish wear, shoes, handcuffs, role play? Ins;t our sexuality always articulated through power dynamics, there is nothing pure about it? I'm not suprised at arf spouting such essentialist bollox but i'm at j.rogue, i really would have thought you'd have known better.

The issue isn't whether it is a sexuality but whether it is a sexuality that society should allow to act out itself, whetehr it's a sexuality we are willing to tolerate.

There is a huge difference between someone getting off on age play versus paedophilia, and roleplayinga rape scene versus rape. They are nowhere close to the same thing.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jul 26 2007 19:01
revol68 wrote:
j.rogue wrote:
revol68 wrote:
eh i'm afraid youse are full of shite, because it is about sex, it may be a sexuality that involves an uneven power dynamic and be damaging to the 'other' but it is a sexuality. I mean what basis are you using to decide sexuality, what is the template? Is BDSM part of sexuality, fetish wear, shoes, handcuffs, role play? Ins;t our sexuality always articulated through power dynamics, there is nothing pure about it? I'm not suprised at arf spouting such essentialist bollox but i'm at j.rogue, i really would have thought you'd have known better.

The issue isn't whether it is a sexuality but whether it is a sexuality that society should allow to act out itself, whetehr it's a sexuality we are willing to tolerate.

There is a huge difference between someone getting off on age play versus paedophilia, and roleplayinga rape scene versus rape. They are nowhere close to the same thing.

that wasn't my argument, of course there is a difference between the two, my argument is that paedophilia is a form of sexuality, it's just a dangerous and damaging form of it that shouldn't be tolerated.

I guess we just disagree then. (About the "form of sexuality" bit, not the "shouldn't be tolerated" bit.)

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 26 2007 19:48
revol68 wrote:
ah right so we just disagree...

i think you need to argue why it's not a form of sexuality, you just can't proclaim that it's not. On what basis is a sexual preference not a sexuality? Are sexuality's set forms, can they not be damaging or destructive, and if so why not?

Yeah, I think you two are trying to impose political ideology related to rape (and unrelated to healthy sexualities like homosexuality or heterosexuality) onto this, when it's not valid. And if it is valid you need to demonstrate it (that it is a sexuality - that some people are sexually attracted to children, does not need further evidence)

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Jul 26 2007 19:52
revol68 wrote:
ah right so we just disagree...

i think you need to argue why it's not a form of sexuality, you just can't proclaim that it's not. On what basis is a sexual preference not a sexuality? Are sexuality's set forms, can they not be damaging or destructive, and if so why not?

Revol

Paedophilia is not a sexual preference!! roll eyes It is a compulsion.....

Adult sexual practices CAN be damaging if the individuals lack awareness or one is exploiting the other, for example. Paedophilia is inherently damaging in and of itself.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Jul 26 2007 20:07
revol68 wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:
revol68 wrote:
ah right so we just disagree...

i think you need to argue why it's not a form of sexuality, you just can't proclaim that it's not. On what basis is a sexual preference not a sexuality? Are sexuality's set forms, can they not be damaging or destructive, and if so why not?

Revol

Paedophilia is not a sexual preference!! roll eyes It is a compulsion.....

Adult sexual practices CAN be damaging if the individuals lack awareness or one is exploiting the other, for example. Paedophilia is inherently damaging in and of itself.

and what the fuck is heterosexuality and homosexuality? Just wee whims? Would you not say they are compulsions? What is the distinction between a sexuality and a compulsion?

And yes Paedophilia is inherently damaging because of the powe dynamics it involves but that in no way stops it being a sexuality.

Er.. i can see you genuinely don't know what i mean...the difference between healthy tongue sexuality and compulsion lies in the arena of control, .. I would say hetero/ homo sexual feelings are desires and urges but having these desires and urges does NOT mean one is compelled to act on them no matter what the consequences to oneself or others...

I know what you mean when you and John say the nature of the attraction is sexual - at least in part - but the trouble with giving it the label of a "sexuality" is we end up with the kind of shit written in that article where it is deemed to be a preference/given a validity which it doesn't fucking deserve and ends up being lumped in with homosexuality etc... twisted

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Jul 26 2007 20:12

Does that mean that someone who wants to have sex with children but never acts on them (and restricts their activities to looking at child porn, say) isn't a paedophile?

Taking these two quotes would suggest this to be so: -

Quote:
Paedophilia is not a sexual preference!! It is a compulsion.....
Quote:
I would say hetero/ homo sexual feelings are desires and urges but having these desires and urges does NOT mean one is compelled to act on them no matter what the consequences to oneself or others...

Unless, of course, looking at child porn counts as "acting out."

In which case, it's a fairly meaningless distinction.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Jul 26 2007 20:36
the button wrote:
Does that mean that someone who wants to have sex with children but never acts on them (and restricts their activities to looking at child porn, say) isn't a paedophile?

Taking these two quotes would suggest this to be so: -

Quote:
Paedophilia is not a sexual preference!! It is a compulsion.....
Quote:
I would say hetero/ homo sexual feelings are desires and urges but having these desires and urges does NOT mean one is compelled to act on them no matter what the consequences to oneself or others...

Unless, of course, looking at child porn counts as "acting out."

In which case, it's a fairly meaningless distinction.

Needing to view child porn is still a compulsion!

They are still paedophiles! If they are not currently damaging children directly they are said to be non-practicing paedophlies if you really want to know tho i dislike that term as it negates the damage done to the children who were abused in order to view those images. As i have said before everyone in that supply chain is guilty and bears responsibility.

Umm there still seems to be this belief that "non-practicing" paedos are doing so i.e, not practicing for some valiant reason such as not wanting to harm a child but porn still involves child harm and also some damaged people get their kicks vicariously through the abusive actions of others.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jul 26 2007 20:49

Oh for fucks sake. Molesting children isn't a sexuality. Its a sickness. Might as well say a dog thats got rabies is a sexuality. Either way you gotta put them down.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jul 27 2007 00:23
Quote:
Oh for fucks sake. Molesting children isn't a sexuality. Its a sickness. Might as well say a dog thats got rabies is a sexuality. Either way you gotta put them down

is "rape" sexual? maybe you have a point tho - i assume that paraphilias grow out of childhood compulsions rather than pathways that recognized as "sexual"; i mean it's not more sexual than childhood masturbation.

Quote:
That is not a value judgement

it is a value judgment as there is no way to determine that something is or isn't natural without values.

btw quite a few psychiatrists atm want to differentiate more fully the paraphillias and "harmless" attraction. i read on urban that "attraction" is really quite common!

eta: i'm not really happy about any kind of paraphillic attraction being classed as an illness tbh.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jul 27 2007 00:38

no i read that there are studies that say that x% of normals have a sexual reaction to images of child sexual abuse [this study was mentioned in my psyc course]. x% of normals have sexual reaction to what - i don't know, children playing eek :-/

yeah saying that it's not abnormal is a value-judgement - not sure about saying that paraphillia is "sexual". i don't see the need for the term myself - different pathways and all that - why would we need to say that it is sexual if there is no evidence that it grows out of adult behaviours?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jul 27 2007 00:48

i personally think the second study i mentioned raises an interesting ethical/political point. is everyone on these boards happy to chemically castrate/kill/kill painfully anyone who finds images of children arousing? what if it were quite common?

i do remember - the shit kids get up to, maybe it wouldn't surprise me so much if it weren't that uncommon. but i dunno if the study [cited on urban] is accepted or what. [the one about images of "sexual" abuse is cited in introductory psyc textbooks].

laugh out loud disturbing enough for youse?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jul 27 2007 00:50

anyway wrt op. certainly no platform! what are we - that mickey mouse laugh out loud eek

Bob Savage's picture
Bob Savage
Offline
Joined: 15-01-07
Jul 27 2007 00:51
revol68 wrote:
i remeber getting hard on's in the middleoff mass for no reason, I'd hope to fuck the priest

He was hoping the same thing, son.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jul 27 2007 02:26

ok, can you point to a non sequitor?

Quote:
Sexuality or sexual reaction should no way be reduced to mere biological reaction

yes this is a good point, but i'm unsure that i was reducing it to biological reaction or just using biological reaction as a signal.

i'm sorry if i haven't answered all ur points [which do seem worthwhile], perhaps i will later. i don't really enjoy talking about this sort of thing tbh - i doubt anyone really does :-/

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Jul 27 2007 02:32
lem wrote:
ok, can you point to a non sequitor?
Quote:
Sexuality or sexual reaction should no way be reduced to mere biological reaction

yes this is a good point, but i'm unsure that i was reducing it to biological reaction or just using biological reaction as a signal.

i'm sorry if i haven't answered all ur points [which do seem worthwhile], perhaps i will later. i don't really enjoy talking about this sort of thing tbh - i doubt anyone really does :-/

Oh please - revol's point's are not worthwhile at all so no worries about responding to them!!!!

Plus i understand most of what you have said.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jul 27 2007 02:34

'abnormal' is a value term because it makes a statement a preference. like "don't" or "shouldn't". that's what the philosophy of medicine seems to say anyyway. there have attempts ways to define abnormal value-free in medicine - e.g. is atypical for the species and is more likely to lead to death of infertility. these are very difficult to use for the medical agent however. it would appear that abnormal is only not a value judgment if it is defined in a way wherein we can not tell [at present at least] if something is abnormal [does everything we want to call abnormal actually meet the above definition?]. this of course will smuggle in value judgments under the guise of science [-or objectivity; whatever].