Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-2

zorblax wrote (edited )

UNPOPULAR OPINION INCOMING

pedophiles, and more broadly anyone with extreme sexual/personality dysfunction.

Lefties seem to have this weird fixation on pedophilia, equating simply having that desire to some sort of affront to humanity. Most pedophiles are not child rapists. It's weird because people will do this whole song and dance to avoid being ableist while basically saying that pedophiles need to be culled.

I think it has to do with an underlying ideological belief that all people are good at heart. It's just not true. There are some people that have truly fucked up minds, no matter what society or situation they're born into, and you have to just accept that and recognize them as people anyway.

EDIT: also, this whole "you're with us or against us" attitude that so many on the left have. It's extremely toxic.

6

ziq wrote (edited )

Yeah, no. There's nothing unfair about excluding pedophiles. They're not oppressed in any way, shape or form. They're oppressors. Their entire identity is based around sexualizing children. I refuse to buy into the 'pedoing is a sexuality just like homosexuality!" narrative pedos peddle on reddit. It's not true.

Seriously, fuck anyone that identifies as a pedo and then complains about being excluded.

Also, talking out against pedo leftists got me stalked and doxxed on reddit and they started a malicious campaign to brand me as a pedo and email people I work with telling them I'm a pedo. All for daring to say that pedos are fucked. So double fuck them.

1

zorblax wrote

if someone close to you said they had dreams about raping children, how would you react?

4

Dumai wrote

pedophilia is a nonsense medical category anyway and actually obscures the gendered nature of systemic child sexual abuse as a practice of power but that's not an excuse to defend people who want to have sex with kids, fuck off with that shit it's not a disability

if anything you seem to be taking advantage of this category's flaws (i.e. the complete myth that there is such a thing as a "pedophile mind", that this is anything but a very shoddy construct) for the benefit of rapists or wannabe rapists. which i notice is very common on the internet nowadays

1

zorblax wrote

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.

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

Did you know many pedophiles are adamantly against having sex with kids, and are extremely ashamed of their urges?

did you know that this narrative has typically been used to defend people who have actually raped children? 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?

psychopathy

oh good another not-easy medical construct with infamously hazy criteria. and one that also more often functions as a legal term that obscures a lot of gendered violence... could have picked a better example pal

And, if there is not a "pedophile mind", what is it that gives people those urges?

it's very complex! medical professionals are not in agreement as to what criteria define this "mind" in the first place! which is where equally silly terminology like "ephebophilia" and "hebephilia" comes from! even outside of that, many people who would be popularly described as pedophiles do not actually fit formal medical criteria (such as DSM) for a whole mess of complicated and awful reasons! and anyway, nobody is exactly sure what role socialisation plays! you're kind of stumbling into psychological debates you have no idea about here

I agree it's not a disability

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 also wrong to vilify people for something they can't exactly control

it's more wrong to essentialise constructs of sexuality at the expense of child rape victims i feel

5

Dumai wrote (edited )

oh and another thing - "pedophilia" relies on a western construction of childhood that runs parallel to the wider fetishisation of innocence and purity as sexualised characteristics. neither of these things are cultural universals which further complicates any attempt to study pedophilia as a natural object.

7

leftous 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. :/

1

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.

4

Dumai wrote

They'd still be labelled a pedophile by almost anyone you meet.

which, to me, would seem to demonstrate how shakily constructed a category it actually is, but if you want to take that as a warrant to essentialise sexuality in the service of rape culture then go ahead (disclaimer: do not go ahead. i actually do not want you to do this)

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.

people who overtly perpetuate or practice the sexual fetishisation of youth are contributing to rape culture and are definitely doing something wrong, even if they never physically hurt anybody themselves. no matter how many internet edgelords clumsily attempt to naturalise cultures of modern sexuality, this will not stop being the case.

1

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?

2

Dumai wrote

depends. what kind of personal history do they have? what sort of cultures do they live with? what is their position within matrices of power? do they get any pleasure out of these thoughts?

it could be that they're somewhere on the anxiety spectrum and that these thoughts are intrusive, meaning they're actually wholly unwanted and upsetting. it could be that they're an abuse victim who uses thoughts of violence as a coping mechanism. it could be that they're a shitty white dude fixated on a violent masculine power fantasy, in which case these thoughts will be connected to their personal racism and sexism.

now here's a thought experiment for you: how about you actually engage with what i've been saying this whole time?

1

zorblax wrote

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

1

Dumai wrote

do you not see how the two are obviously linked or what

1

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

Dumai wrote (edited )

when did punishment become a part of the conversation?

would you negatively judge somebody who professes racist beliefs without ever "acting on" them (the line between two is probably more blurry than you're assuming)?

1

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.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

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.

given how many people are already trying to define racism as an expression of mental illness or otherwise psychological impulse (much in the same way you are trying to do with pedophilia) we'll see how long this belief lasts but have you ever noticed how ex-white supremecists actually tend to spend a lot of time in therapy? have you ever noticed how overcoming culturally instilled racist beliefs and behaviours actually takes years of effort? what would your opinion be of somebody who doesn't even bother to try because they like themselves that way?

1

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.

4

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?

1

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.

3

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?

1

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.

2

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?

1

zorblax wrote

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

2

zod wrote

I'm so confused.

1

zorblax wrote

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

5

ziq wrote

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

1

zorblax wrote

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

3

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"?

1

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?

3

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.

0

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.

3

ziq wrote

Engaging in fantasies and viewing pornography is also partaking.

0

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.

3

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.

-1

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?

4

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).

3

ziq wrote (edited )

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

0

zorblax wrote (edited )

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

4

leftous 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.

-1

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.

3

leftous 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?

-1

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.

3

leftous 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.

1

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

Dumai wrote (edited )

These people exist, they will always exist in some form or another,

did you miss what i said about how nothing in pedophilia (the medical sexual category or the modern western construct of childhood it depends on) is a universal

i ask because you never responded to it and now you seem to be acting like you didn't read it

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.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

zorblax wrote (edited )

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

3

[deleted] wrote

0

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.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

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.

2

Dumai wrote

My own views are usually pretty vague.

this is the first thing you've said in the entire thread that makes any sense to me