Operation Rescue Nets 70,000 pedoscums

[Lyte]

(Hebephiles are just a subgroup of Pedophiles).

Try reading for comprehension

Alright, my bad. I just checked that the years overlapped in those articles. So, in my "not so scientific" model Pedophiles are the group one (the pervs) and Hebephiles and Ephephiles are the group two (can fall within the normal sexuality). This is what you are saying here?

From the evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that females would tend to be teliophiles (it's common for girls to like older men, due to their being more promising mates/ rearers of childeren and also the female's faster mental development compared to the male's) while males would tend to be ephebophiles (with some attraction to those entering puberty) due to the fact they've more fertile years ahead of them

 

[chanel]

What you call "intellectual honesty", I call "apologetics". Yep. It's an emotional subject, and there is no room for rationalization of this type of behavior.

Supply and demand. Without pedoscums subscribing to this vile trash, there would be no market for it. The consumers are as guilty as the perps. And yet lyte prefers to call them "normals".

How about if we just let the other guys in prison sort it all out?

 

[Lyte]

What you call "intellectual honesty", I call "apologetics". Yep. It's an emotional subject, and there is no room for rationalization of this type of behavior.

Supply and demand. Without pedoscums subscribing to this vile trash, there would be no market for it. The consumers are as guilty as the perps. And yet lyte prefers to call them "normals".

How about if we just let the other guys in prison sort it all out?

When have I called pedophiles who subscribe to pornographic material of children, normals?

We are discussing about when human sexuality turns from normal sexuality to a perverse one. There is no evolutionary reason for males to attract to prepubescent females, but JB gave pretty good explanation why men are attracted towards teens. I agree with JB. If you disagree, challenge these points with arguments, not insults.

Where do you think stands the limit when male sexual attraction turns from healthy to perverse when it comes to age of the subject?

 

[chanel]

A teen is one thing. 13 used to be a marriageble age in the Middle Ages when people lived to around 26 or so. However, now the age of consent for most countries is considerable higher....16 for some states as well, not just Finland, but 18 for most. We are mainly talking about those who prey on children, not teen agers.

Actually if you look at post #10 you see that Chanel didn't make a distinction between pedophiles preying on teenagers and children. That is where this debate started.

A pedophile who targets children 12 and younger is not fixable. They have a 100% recidivism rate and absolutely will harm children for as long as they can, and the part that is so bad is they truly believe that it is absolutely OK for them to do it. Their brains really are wired wrong.

That has been my claim all along. Sexual predators are divided into 2 groups. To ones who act out their perversion, and to those "normals" who don't care about the age of consent.

Lyte - I am done with this conversation. The entire subject is very distressing to me. Teenagers are children in my eyes. And let's not forget that some of those "post-pubescent" victims saved by Operation Rescue were most likely little kids when the abuse began. Fucking sickos.

 

[Lyte]

A teen is one thing. 13 used to be a marriageble age in the Middle Ages when people lived to around 26 or so. However, now the age of consent for most countries is considerable higher....16 for some states as well, not just Finland, but 18 for most. We are mainly talking about those who prey on children, not teen agers.

Actually if you look at post #10 you see that Chanel didn't make a distinction between pedophiles preying on teenagers and children. That is where this debate started.

A pedophile who targets children 12 and younger is not fixable. They have a 100% recidivism rate and absolutely will harm children for as long as they can, and the part that is so bad is they truly believe that it is absolutely OK for them to do it. Their brains really are wired wrong.

That has been my claim all along. Sexual predators are divided into 2 groups. To ones who act out their perversion, and to those "normals" who don't care about the age of consent.

Lyte - I am done with this conversation. The entire subject is very distressing to me. Teenagers are children in my eyes. And let's not forget that some of those "post-pubescent" victims saved by Operation Rescue were most likely little kids when the abuse began. Fucking sickos.

Alright, I understand this is a distressing subject. I just want to point out that in that section you highlighted from my post, I have quotes over the word normal. To my understanding, no one is defending the abuse of children or teens here. When I started to comment on this thread, I was simply trying to find an explanation to the large amount of sexual abuse cases of minors - and argued that the problem is twofold. Pervs - who are sexually abnormal and "Norms" - who can't control their evolutionary desire for women as the law requires us to do.

 

[California Girl]

Actually if you look at post #10 you see that Chanel didn't make a distinction between pedophiles preying on teenagers and children. That is where this debate started.


That has been my claim all along. Sexual predators are divided into 2 groups. To ones who act out their perversion, and to those "normals" who don't care about the age of consent.

Lyte - I am done with this conversation. The entire subject is very distressing to me. Teenagers are children in my eyes. And let's not forget that some of those "post-pubescent" victims saved by Operation Rescue were most likely little kids when the abuse began. Fucking sickos.

Alright, I understand this is a distressing subject. I just want to point out that in that section you highlighted from my post, I have quotes over the word normal. To my understanding, no one is defending the abuse of children or teens here. When I started to comment on this thread, I was simply trying to find an explanation to the large amount of sexual abuse cases of minors - and argued that the problem is twofold. Pervs - who are sexually abnormal and "Norms" - who can't control their evolutionary desire for women as the law requires us to do.

There is nothing 'normal' about sexual desires towards children. Nothing.

I see your 'point' about being labeled a 'pedophile' for having sex with a 17 year old, or one below the age of consent. However, your 'fact' is not based in reality. Having sex with a 17 year old would be statutory rape, not pedophilia.

These people - the ones being targeted in this global police operation - it's not about 17 year olds. It's about babies... little kids. And that, in any civilized society, is wrong.

Having said that, I certainly don't agree with 'shooting them on sight'. I prefer we give the due process: arrest them, try them and... once their crimes are proven, execute them quickly and painlessly.

 

[Lyte]

There is nothing 'normal' about sexual desires towards children. Nothing.

I see your 'point' about being labeled a 'pedophile' for having sex with a 17 year old, or one below the age of consent. However, your 'fact' is not based in reality. Having sex with a 17 year old would be statutory rape, not pedophilia.

These people - the ones being targeted in this global police operation - it's not about 17 year olds. It's about babies... little kids. And that, in any civilized society, is wrong.

Having said that, I certainly don't agree with 'shooting them on sight'. I prefer we give the due process: arrest them, try them and... once their crimes are proven, execute them quickly and painlessly.

I admit I'm no expert on US law, I get my information from the net about this subject. Are you saying that this information is wrong:

Sexual offenses can be broken down into a number of types. One major category includes acts in which there is violent behavior directed toward a sexual object, such as in rape. Another category embraces offenses in which at least the victim of the act is a minor. Such offenses are usually classified under the broad heading of pedophilia, and also include a type of criminal behavior known as statutory rape, which involves sexual intercourse by a male with a female who is under the legal age of consent, generally eighteen years in the United States.

If US law doesn't consider statutory rape being pedophilic offence, I have misunderstood. There is a lot of contradictory information about this subject.

 

[JBeukema]

Having sex with a 17 year old would be statutory rape, not pedophilia.

Explain it to Chanel. She's the one throwing the word 'paedophilia' around when it doesn't apply and intentionally confusing the issue.

 

[editec]

Humans be definition are "rational" animals. Savage uncivilized animals belong in cages.

Tip of the day; See oddballs post.

So even though I condemned these pedophiles harsher than you, you accuse me of being a pedophile - it is amazing how little you understood what I was typing (I guess this English thing is harder than I thought).

No that is not what's happening.

You see some people like to beat their chests and announce how terrible NORMAL they are, and one of the ways they can do that is by accusing others of NOT BEING NORMAL.

Basically they are CHEAP SHOT artists seeking to elevate their own reps by standing on the corpse of YOUR reputation.

This is still another example of the intellectual dishonesty that so many people here cleave to as a way to score points.

 

[tigerbob]

So disturbing. I am blown away by that number.

That number does not surprise me at all. Age of consent is a decided value, set by the society to protect the youth from sexual manipulation. It can be set to 13, 16, 18 or even 50 if the society thinks it is necessary to ensure peoples good life. Law doesn't affect our biology though.

When a female or male of any animal comes to reproductive age, it starts to attract the opposite sex. This is the same with humans. You can't really accuse these individuals who choose to molest teens in their puberty of being "perverse" - No, it is a pure criminal act. Only when they molest children who haven't reached puberty, it becomes a perversion.This is why (imo) we have so much pedophiles, it is not a perversion, but all adults are attracted to - more or less to children between the "age consent" and puberty. Adults who don't understand the necessity of the potective age - or just don't care, will risk it.

I probably typed something politically incorrect there, it is a disturbing thought to consider every adult as a potential pedophile - by their nature. I think most pedophiles aren't "sick" or "abnormal". Scary thought is that they are just like us - their morals are just low.

Have to disagree.

They are certainly abnormal (we're talking about a tiny minority - I hope) and definitely sick (the only way to explain sexual interest in children). If they can't help themselves, then society needs to help them by means of psychiatric care coupled with a very long custodial sentence.

I accept that, in this modern age, children (particularly girls) who have not reached the age of consent often dress and behave as though they are several years older. But we're not talking about a 17 year old and a 15 year old exploring each others genitalia for the first time here. We're talking about mature adults abusing vulnerable and impressionable children for their own sexual gratification and, in many cases, profit.

It's wrong, it's illegal, they know it and they belong behind bars.

 

[JBeukema]

I wonder whether Chanel shaves, thereby mimicking prepubescence and early adolescence

The reality is that men are instinctively attracted to peripubescent and immediately post-pubescent females. Everybody knows this, and women try to maintain that 'I just started bleeding' look as long as they can. Think about it: why do women shave their legs? Why do they remove their pubic hair? Why is this considered beautiful? Because a lack of secondary sex traits is a sign of youth- not just youth, but, when combined with developed or developing breasts, a 'cute' face, and other common themes of 'beauty', of a very specific period of time: that period of time when a girl first becomes sexually mature. This is because it offers a sexually mature (or sufficiently developed) female while maximizing the amount of time she will be sexually receptive and fertile.

In Western society especially, the goal is to merge the signs of youth (lack of body hair, 'cuteness', a slender figure, etc) with sign of fertility (developed breasts, widened hips, etc). This creation of the hypersexual child-woman is the ultimate goal of most women in Western society when they make themselves up, and it is designed to offer the 'ideal'. Now, this is also done with young children. Take Jeanbenet Ramsey and others. They took a young girl (with the aforementioned traits) and worked in the opposite direction, attempting to make her hips look more developed by making her waits look smaller and 'womanizing' her. In both cases, the end goal is the same: to create a hypersexual child-woman with signs of sufficient sexual maturity while retaining as much as possible signs of youth and maximum future reproductive potential. In both cases, the result is the same: appeal to as many as possible of the most basic sexual signals designed to attract sexually active and available males.

To then expect males to not be attracted to the very signals and age range that their brains are hardwired to find attractive is unrealistic. The fact is that hebo- and ephebophilia are simple the most natural attraction. The most basic 'age of attraction' is for males to be attracted to females between puberty (oft 10-13, depending largely on environmental factors) to late adolescence and early twenties. (women are programmed to find males of an older age attractive, generally late teens to mid mid or lat 20s, due to the fact that females generally mature at a younger age than males)

Keep in mind that while the human lifespan has increased, the increase in the timespan when women are most fertile and best able to reproduce has increased very little ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Women-Feminism/dp/1596980036"]the truth is that waiting can be a baby-killer[/ame]) in comparison; we've mostly extended the amount of time we have past our prime before we die. Age of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche"]menarchy[/ame] has changed little and some evdence suggest that it might be coming about earlier than ever due to modern diets that cause girls to reach their 'trigger weight' at a younger age.

I don't recall how we got onto the subjects of hepe- and ephebophilia and all this, but if we're going to discuss can we please try to do so honestly and intelligently?

 

[Lyte]

So disturbing. I am blown away by that number.

That number does not surprise me at all. Age of consent is a decided value, set by the society to protect the youth from sexual manipulation. It can be set to 13, 16, 18 or even 50 if the society thinks it is necessary to ensure peoples good life. Law doesn't affect our biology though.

When a female or male of any animal comes to reproductive age, it starts to attract the opposite sex. This is the same with humans. You can't really accuse these individuals who choose to molest teens in their puberty of being "perverse" - No, it is a pure criminal act. Only when they molest children who haven't reached puberty, it becomes a perversion.This is why (imo) we have so much pedophiles, it is not a perversion, but all adults are attracted to - more or less to children between the "age consent" and puberty. Adults who don't understand the necessity of the potective age - or just don't care, will risk it.

I probably typed something politically incorrect there, it is a disturbing thought to consider every adult as a potential pedophile - by their nature. I think most pedophiles aren't "sick" or "abnormal". Scary thought is that they are just like us - their morals are just low.

Have to disagree.

They are certainly abnormal (we're talking about a tiny minority - I hope) and definitely sick (the only way to explain sexual interest in children). If they can't help themselves, then society needs to help them by means of psychiatric care coupled with a very long custodial sentence.

I accept that, in this modern age, children (particularly girls) who have not reached the age of consent often dress and behave as though they are several years older. But we're not talking about a 17 year old and a 15 year old exploring each others genitalia for the first time here. We're talking about mature adults abusing vulnerable and impressionable children for their own sexual gratification and, in many cases, profit.

It's wrong, it's illegal, they know it and they belong behind bars.

Tigerbob, you are not disagreeing with me. I stated that it is a "criminal act" - it is wrong, it is illegal. Question is is it perverse (sexually abnormal) for an elderly man to lust after teens, or does that fall within normal sexuality of humans. We both agree that it is perverse to lust after pre teens or younger as I wrote:

Only when they molest children who haven't reached puberty, it becomes a perversion.

 

[tigerbob]

So disturbing. I am blown away by that number.

That number does not surprise me at all. Age of consent is a decided value, set by the society to protect the youth from sexual manipulation. It can be set to 13, 16, 18 or even 50 if the society thinks it is necessary to ensure peoples good life. Law doesn't affect our biology though.

When a female or male of any animal comes to reproductive age, it starts to attract the opposite sex. This is the same with humans. You can't really accuse these individuals who choose to molest teens in their puberty of being "perverse" - No, it is a pure criminal act. Only when they molest children who haven't reached puberty, it becomes a perversion.This is why (imo) we have so much pedophiles, it is not a perversion, but all adults are attracted to - more or less to children between the "age consent" and puberty. Adults who don't understand the necessity of the potective age - or just don't care, will risk it.

I probably typed something politically incorrect there, it is a disturbing thought to consider every adult as a potential pedophile - by their nature. I think most pedophiles aren't "sick" or "abnormal". Scary thought is that they are just like us - their morals are just low.

Uh oh. Looks like we have a member.

That post was not "politically incorrect" it was disgusting.

Newsflash: It is a perversion. It is sick. It is abnormal. Most adults are NOT attracted to children you sick fuck.

While I disagree with Lyte's post, I think that some interesting (and rather brave, in the face of an anticipated backlash) points are made that can't simply be dismissed with a "you're a sick fuck" response.

I suspect everyone has a view on the age at which something stops being solely criminal and moves into criminal and sick. I also suspect that there is significant blurring.

If you're 30 years old and have sex with a 15 year old who looks 19, are you more or less criminal that if you are a 30 year old who has sex with a 19 year old who looks 15? Clearly you are more criminal. But which is more sick?

 

[dilloduck]

Is a 15 year old who has sex with a 15 year old any less of a predator than a 20 year old who has sex with a 15 year old ?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yeah. And it amazes me that someone would try to confuse the issue. This is not about age of consent. Two teens having sex may be natural and legal. A grown man filming or getting off on watching it, is not. That is just fucking sick. Even in Finland.

This.
The last time I was interested in 15 year old girls was when I was 15 myself.

You know as well as I, that there are 15 year old girls who could easily pass for being over 18, and they can be gorgeous. That's God's plan - young women are very attractive to men for a reason. Placing an age limit on it is a societal invention. In the many conversations I have had with Him () I don't think I ever heard God mentioning at what age (for the female) men are allowed to start lusting after women. That is what Lyte is talking about when he mentions "biology."
There is obviously something very wrong with an adult male who lusts after small children. But a 15 year old girl can hardly be classified as a "small child." Make sense?

No. Because while a 15 year old girl may look like an 18 year old, she's still 15 and underage.

Plus, 15 year olds (Boy and Girls) are not mature enough to make proper decisions on sex. They are merely driven by their hormones.

Adult pervs know this and use that opportunity to manipulate and exploit kids for their own devious desires.

Just because some 15 year old girl "looks hot" is no excuse.

 

[JBeukema]

if you are a 30 year old who has sex with a 19... Clearly you are more criminal.

Where is that criminal?

 

[tigerbob]

That number does not surprise me at all. Age of consent is a decided value, set by the society to protect the youth from sexual manipulation. It can be set to 13, 16, 18 or even 50 if the society thinks it is necessary to ensure peoples good life. Law doesn't affect our biology though.

When a female or male of any animal comes to reproductive age, it starts to attract the opposite sex. This is the same with humans. You can't really accuse these individuals who choose to molest teens in their puberty of being "perverse" - No, it is a pure criminal act. Only when they molest children who haven't reached puberty, it becomes a perversion.This is why (imo) we have so much pedophiles, it is not a perversion, but all adults are attracted to - more or less to children between the "age consent" and puberty. Adults who don't understand the necessity of the potective age - or just don't care, will risk it.

I probably typed something politically incorrect there, it is a disturbing thought to consider every adult as a potential pedophile - by their nature. I think most pedophiles aren't "sick" or "abnormal". Scary thought is that they are just like us - their morals are just low.

Have to disagree.

They are certainly abnormal (we're talking about a tiny minority - I hope) and definitely sick (the only way to explain sexual interest in children). If they can't help themselves, then society needs to help them by means of psychiatric care coupled with a very long custodial sentence.

I accept that, in this modern age, children (particularly girls) who have not reached the age of consent often dress and behave as though they are several years older. But we're not talking about a 17 year old and a 15 year old exploring each others genitalia for the first time here. We're talking about mature adults abusing vulnerable and impressionable children for their own sexual gratification and, in many cases, profit.

It's wrong, it's illegal, they know it and they belong behind bars.

Tigerbob, you are not disagreeing with me. I stated that it is a "criminal act" - it is wrong, it is illegal. Question is is it perverse (sexually abnormal) for an elderly man to lust after teens, or does that fall within normal sexuality of humans. We both agree that it is perverse to lust after pre teens or younger as I wrote:

Only when they molest children who haven't reached puberty, it becomes a perversion.

Actually, I still think we are on slightly different pages. My view is that a mature adult who is interested in a pubescent girl of, say, 13, is pretty sick. The issue that I find interesting is at what age it stops being sick and becomes solely criminal. Is it 15? Is it 17? Is it 19 (even though that's above the age of consent in most places)? Does it vary by geography? Does it vary by apparent age rather than actual age?

Your view appears to be that a mature adult can be attracted to a young person who is between the onset of puberty and the age of consent and that acting on this attraction is merely criminal and not necessarily perverted. I disagree. I think that a mature adult can find a young person attractive (i.e. pretty or handsome), but to be sexually attracted to a young teen is something I find very hard to understand and pretty hard to stomach.

My daughter is 13. She has a number of school friends who are 13, 14 or even 15. Some of them are very pretty, but if I were sexually attracted to any of them I would worry that there was something wrong with me, except if I were in the same broad age range as they were.

Interesting discussion.

 

[tigerbob]

Is a 15 year old who has sex with a 15 year old any less of a predator than a 20 year old who has sex with a 15 year old ?

Excellent question.

 

[tigerbob]

if you are a 30 year old who has sex with a 19... Clearly you are more criminal.

Where is that criminal?

I think you've misread my post.

 

[dilloduck]

This.
The last time I was interested in 15 year old girls was when I was 15 myself.

You know as well as I, that there are 15 year old girls who could easily pass for being over 18, and they can be gorgeous. That's God's plan - young women are very attractive to men for a reason. Placing an age limit on it is a societal invention. In the many conversations I have had with Him () I don't think I ever heard God mentioning at what age (for the female) men are allowed to start lusting after women. That is what Lyte is talking about when he mentions "biology."
There is obviously something very wrong with an adult male who lusts after small children. But a 15 year old girl can hardly be classified as a "small child." Make sense?

No. Because while a 15 year old girl may look like an 18 year old, she's still 15 and underage.

Plus, 15 year olds (Boy and Girls) are not mature enough to make proper decisions on sex. They are merely driven by their hormones.

Adult pervs know this and use that opportunity to manipulate and exploit kids for their own devious desires.

Just because some 15 year old girl "looks hot" is no excuse.

You are mistaking age for maturity.