Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zorblax wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted4371 in Who do you find "the left" unfairly excludes or discriminates against the most? How can we be more inclusive to that particular group? by leftous

Did you know many pedophiles are adamantly against having sex with kids, and are extremely ashamed of their urges? The same could be applied to a whole range of people with rape fantasies or psychopathy or any other fucked-upedness.

And, if there is not a "pedophile mind", what is it that gives people those urges? I agree it's not a disability, but it's also wrong to vilify people for something they can't exactly control.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

6

[deleted] wrote (edited )

6

leftous OP wrote

Really well put. I agree reducing pedophilia to a simple "sexual preference" really neglects the harm and damage it does.

Pedophiles are people who fetishize innocence and are sexually excited by rape (which is what sex with a child entails). We call out the fetishization of minorities, trans people, etc - this is no different and far more disturbing. :/

8

zorblax wrote (edited )

did you know that somebody who feels more disgust and shame than actual pleasure at the thought of having sex with a child may not medically count as a pedophile anyhow?

does it matter? They'd still be labelled a pedophile by almost anyone you meet.

look if it's not a disability then it's not ableist to hate people who want to fuck kids, as you insinuated

it's not uncommon to see ableist language used in that context.

you're kind of stumbling into psychological debates you have no idea about here

Actually I don't think the exact medical/psychological definition of pedophilia or psychopathy or what-have-you is very important to this debate. What's important is that someone who does nothing wrong to anybody can still considered evil because of something that goes on in their heads, and in particular something that they have no conscious control over.

1

zod wrote (edited )

Are you talking from personal experience? Are you a pedophile? How do you know they have no control over their child rape fetish?

5

zorblax wrote

no, but if you know what lainchan is I've been a regular for years and I was there when the whole pedo thing happened.

I've met the whole range, from pedos who say they've raped kids before, to pedos who say they avoid being around kids and read 'loli porn'(which is basically hentai sexualizing children) to get off.

1

zod wrote

I don't know what that is and I'm not going to go looking for a site that caters to child rapists. How can you stand to hang out with those people?

3

zorblax wrote

"caters to child rapists" is a stretch, considering that the whole "pedo thing" was that they were all(eventually) banned for talking about it on the website.

1

zod wrote (edited )

So why did your discussions with admitted child rapists on that chan site lead to you feeling the need to defend pedophiles here?

2

zorblax wrote

because I think it's a thing that people don't think about often enough.

1

zod wrote

I'm so confused.

2

zorblax wrote

I'm just trying to challenge peoples' viewpoints. My own views are usually pretty vague.

1

ziq wrote

Normalizing child rape fetishes isn't challenging, it's repulsive.

5

zorblax wrote

I don't think it's normal. I think it's a severe aberration.

1

ziq wrote

Then why are you saying we should include them more in our circles and why are you spreading the myth that they hold no responsibility for their depraved and dangerous fetish because "they can't help it"?

3

zorblax wrote

Then why are you saying we should include them more in our circles

Go and re-read my comment. These people exist, they will always exist in some form or another, and I think it's wrong to hate them for being the way they are rather than for any actions they have done.

the myth

are you sure it's a myth?

1

ziq wrote

Yes I'm sure pedos are responsible for partaking in their fetish.

I wish people wouldn't spend all that energy normalizing and defending pedos on the internet and then claim they're only 'challenging' us. It would be a lot easier to communicate if you dropped the facade of doublespeak and misdirection and engaged honestly.

3

zorblax wrote

Yes I'm sure pedos are responsible for partaking in their fetish.

partaking is different from having. That's what I'm talking about. Obviously they're responsible for raping kids.

It would be a lot easier to communicate if you dropped the facade of doublespeak and misdirection and engaged honestly.

I literally do not know how to please you.

0

ziq wrote

Engaging in fantasies and viewing pornography is also partaking.

3

zorblax wrote

I agree that viewing physical child pornography is on the same level as rape. But I don't think having fantasies is wronging anybody.

0

ziq wrote

All pornography, including lolicon. Allowing yourself to entertain harmful fantasies of raping children furthers the sexualization of children in society and the abuse of children both physically and mentally. Children are not sex objects. They are not masturbation fodder. Sexualizing them IS NOT harmless.

3

zorblax wrote

See, this is what I don't get. What is harmful about it? Sure it's disgusting, it's taboo, it obviously is not normal and shouldn't be treated as such. But what is harmful about it? Who does it harm?

−1

mofongo wrote

It's not something that would, it's something that will.

I have three opinions regarding pedophilia/acs. The first being that is necessary to protect children from harm and those that would harm them. It's impossible to know who is just waiting for the opportunity to satisfy their desires and its very idealistic to expect for everyone to have full control of their urges. In many cases of child abuse that I have read and heard, the opportunity to be alone with a child was all that was needed, be it a child under their care, younger family members, their own children. When that's not possible For a few dollars, you can go to any third world country and pay cheaply for a child prostitute. Additionally, normalizing pedophilia because is not abuse opens the door to circumstances like "it's ok to leave children with this person, they're a pedophile not an abuser" which will put children at risk as explained above.

The second part is that desire to satisfy these urges lead to the creation of child pornography, drawn or otherwise. In Japan there has been an increase in child rape, and while a casual relationship is hard to prove there's no doubt that their societies casual acceptance of sexualization of children plays a role.

The third part is that pedophile should receive psychological assistance in order to help them better resist their urges and to not put themselves in situations where they could succumb to them. However this online shit show of defending pedos is unproductive to this third part because it normalizes their feelings (and back to beginning).

4

ziq wrote (edited )

It harms children. I feel like you're not reading beyond the first sentence of my replies.

3

zorblax wrote (edited )

how does it harm children? I've read everything you've written multiple times.

0

leftous OP wrote

Would you call nazis sitting around promoting and fantasizing about killing Jews, or the if the KKK were fantasizing about killing blacks, making cartoons about it, "harmless"?

You have to realize that sexualizing children is violence. And not just against any group - but literally the most vulnerable, innocent, and defenseless group. It is not harmless.

4

zorblax wrote

I'd call that violence, sure.

I'd call participating in a subculture that sexualizes children violence, sure.

But I wouldn't call having a fetish about child rape to be violence, and I'd call it pedophilia.

−1

leftous OP wrote

So you agree that lolicon and the associated subculture is violent and harmful.

But you don't consider a fetish to commit violence and cause harm (also known as "pedophilia") to be harmful?

3

zorblax wrote

yeah, that's a good way of putting it.

More importantly I don't think it's right to hate someone just for being fucked in the head. They have to do something, like participate in pedophile subculture or embrace their identity as a pedophile or at the worst actually act on their fetish, to be worthy of hate, in my view.

−1

leftous OP wrote

So if someone said they had a sexual fetish of chopping your head off, decapitating skulls turn them on. You'd say "Hey, at least you haven't chopped my head off yet!" and tell them it's all good?

The reality is it is harmful when someone is driven to violence, no matter how you dress it up. Whether or not you hate someone for being harmful, or try to help them to challenge and destroy these harmful impulses, is an entirely different question.

3

zorblax wrote (edited )

So if someone said they had a sexual fetish of chopping your head off, decapitating skulls turn them on. You'd say "Hey, at least you haven't chopped my head off yet!" and tell them it's all good?

well, yeah, but I get what you mean.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

zorblax wrote (edited )

because I don't think it's worth responding to. If it's not pedophilia it's some other disgusting thing. It's absolutely absurd to think that you can tweak everything just right so that everyone is mentally sound and nobody is internally vile.

0

[deleted] wrote

3

zorblax wrote (edited )

I dunno. Keep going until everyone gets bored? I think it's an interesting conversation.

1

[deleted] wrote

3

zorblax wrote

Of course! I'm learning from this conversation as I go. With a subject like this, in a format like this, the hard part is getting points across clearly, which I think has been the point of this entire comment thread.

0

[deleted] wrote

3

zorblax wrote

maybe. But I think that people like this person, who it's not hard to believe exist, should also not be treated unfairly.

0

ziq wrote

Maybe defend people that are into lynching?

1

[deleted] wrote

3

zorblax wrote

How about a thought experiment: if someone had extremely vivid thoughts of murdering everyone they'd ever met, for their entire life, but never acted on them and were in fact very normal people outwardly, are they bad people? Do they deserve to be feared?

1

[deleted] wrote

1

zorblax wrote

How can you judge someone for their conscious experience and not their actions?

1

[deleted] wrote

0

zorblax wrote

I can understand how, a posteriori, they're pretty obviously linked.

But it's obviously incredibly wrong to punish someone before they've done anything.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

zorblax wrote

when did punishment become a part of the conversation?

It was always? Or am I totally missing something

would you negatively judge somebody who professes racist beliefs without ever "acting on" them?

beliefs can be changed without intensive therapy. Pedophilia, or psychopathy, or <insert something else awful here> is part of a person and it takes more than an illuminating conversation to change it.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

zorblax wrote

what your opinion be of somebody who doesn't even bother to try because they like themselves that way?

I'd obviously hate them.

I've only met one pedophile I had any respect for. He really didn't like that part of himself, and tried to suppress it. He got a lot of shit when he told people about it. He's really the only reason I made this comment in the first place, because I know people like him exist and I think they're treated unfairly.

1