No.18521
I am on the side of paedophiles who seek liberation for themselves AND children. Otherwise you will not see free choice come about. Free choice as in adults and kids being allowed to choose to partake in sexual interactions.
Kids are naturally interested in sexual exploration. So I see no problem in allowing them to partake in such exploration with adults. I am against a society that has the mentality that because an adult says so, a kid has to partake. That's just like the society we have now but with sexual interaction being allowed. No thanks.
I think advancement of youth rights will really help the paedophile cause. Why? Well child sexuality and paedophilia are linked. Child sexuality is taken seriously by a society that takes children seriously. Children's opinions would matter. I've seen plenty of kids come into therapy and I have had to convince them they were hurt and the person who masturbated with them abused them. In a pro-youth rights society I would take a child more seriously when they say "no we had fun, I love my big cousin". In a pro-youth rights society, parents wouldn't be arrested for listening to their kids and allowing interactions they enjoy and consent to to continue.
I do strongly apologize for perpetuating this wrongness by the way. I have my own family and I need to keep my license and business. I will go down in history as one of the many who knew the truth and turned his back on it for his own selfish reasons. Still, if it means anything, I do feel deeply sorry about this and I try to understand the horrid situations you live through and children go through.
I will say this, no one has the right to fuck kids. Just like no one has the right to fuck anyone. You have the right to consensually be involved with a willing partner where said consent was gained legitimately.
Paedophiles, I suggest being aware of and denouncing those who fetishize hurting children. They will try and slither their way in and move the discourse towards "we should be allowed to fuck kids" and not mutual relationships.
Now you may ask, how the heck have I come to your side? Research and anecdotal experiences with my own family and the things the young ones say and do and my own time as a child involved sexually with others.
No.18522
I-is this kopipe?
No.18523
>>18521As fake as this whole thing sounds from the title alone.
>I think advancement of youth rightsI think this as a rights issue is a poor way to go about it.
Mainly because it is not the children fighting for youth rights. The children aren't the ones that really care for that change. And depending on how it is framed they'd probably be against that change.
Children are interested in sex yes, but it's not illegal for them to explore with other kids and most of the time it is just that, them doing sexy stuff to impress others. Just so happens that adults get to peek too.
>I have had to convince them they were hurtIf this is true, this is what should be being tackled. Because the main argument for restricting adult-child sexual interactions is that it causes harm.
And quite often than not examples of this that are brought up are scenarios which are obviously rape regardless of age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji1KAuOBBEY.
If outside of those cases it only causes harm because they're brought up in a society which unintentionally makes them feel bad for being a participant in adult-child sex. Then that is what has to be addressed.
If a delineation is made that adult-child sex doesn't cause harm but rape does then you begin to have a case.
As the only thing holding the law in place is now a conservative issue of morality. Which as seen with homosexuality, morality was not sufficient to have it illegal.
Pedophiles aren't completely innocent in all of this either. A lot of education in actual /younglove/ has to happen before things change.
No.18528
>>18523No this isn't fake, but I am not going to try and convince you because this is the internet.
>I think this as a rights issue is a poor way to go about it.It's not the only way but it is not a poor way, imo
>Mainly because it is not the children fighting for youth rights. The children aren't the ones that really care for that change.Well this is, as you know, a stark generalization. Many kids do care, definitely not the majority, but a lot. NYRA is made up of young teens, a good youth org, though sadly they do not talk about sexual rights.
Besides, most liberation movements required the ones in power to side with them. Most blacks and most women did not fight for rights. Most fought for the status quo. Only after years of work and getting the ones in power on their side did the liberation fighters win.
Children are not taken seriously. By most at least. They are taught from birth that they do not need or deserve rights. Of course most won't be fighting for them, they feel they don't deserve them yet.
>Children are interested in sex yes, but it's not illegal for them to explore with other kids and most of the time it is just that, them doing sexy stuff to impress others.Actually, kids are often prosecuted for sexual interactions with one another. In the West at least. Regardless kids like to be sexual with those who can actually help them and teach them to be safe as well as proper methods, those more experienced. Just like kids do with all things. A loving respectful paedophile is a parental ally, not opponent. A lot of undue harm is done to adults and children for making what is natural illegal.
>If this is true, this is what should be being tackled. Because the main argument for restricting adult-child sexual interactions is that it causes harm. Most unbiased studies show that sexual interaction, when consensual, is not innately harmful. It is the outside factors that cause harm. Force, blackmail, social indoctrination, anti-sex morality, etc.
>Pedophiles aren't completely innocent in all of this either. A lot of education in actual /younglove/ has to happen before things change.Far from it, I agree. Many rape children and film it for other paedophiles. Many feel paedophiles shouldn't care about morals because of society's hatred. Many trick children. A lot of this can be blamed on how social rejection causes negative psychological traits to appear. This on top of the fact that paedophiles, like non-paedophile adults, may view children as things that should sit down and shut up. Which is bad.
No.18531
>>18528>NYRA is made up of young teens, a good youth org, though sadly they do not talk about sexual rights.Which quite possibly shows they don't desire them, yet.
>Besides, most liberation movements required the ones in power to side with themI'd hardly call the pedophiles the ones in power. And if there is even a whiff of pedo things are likely to be turned around to assume it is the pedo grooming the child to fight for the right.
>kids are often prosecuted for sexual interactionsI'd say this is rare that the matter would go further than the parents/therapist of those concerned unless something traumatic was involved.
>with those who can actually help them and teach them to be safe as well as proper methods, those more experienced.Whoa, just those they are attracted to and comfortable around. Though I agree an adult can be such a person.
>A lot of undue harm is done to adults and children for making what is natural illegal.Totally agree.
Children growing into adults blaming other unfortunate events on the fact they were "abused". Sometimes unconsciously seeking out those "abusive" situations because they hold onto the experience as a negative one.
Adult pedos becoming anti-social due to fear of being exposed and judged accordingly.
>Force, blackmail, social indoctrination, anti-sex morality, etc. I'd to that two others that can cause harm as well. Tricking/lying to them about the true intention of the act, in hopes that they don't find out until sufficient time has passed that they have gotten away. And asking them to keep it a secret.
No.18532
psychology has always been the pressure valve of society, psychology drives social progress, and psychology is the best way to enact change. you need the backing of the psychological community.
kids rights is a dead end. kids dont care about their rights, and even if they did theres nothing they can say that wouldnt be interpreted as the result of grooming.
No.18534
>>18532>you need the backing of the psychological community.There's backing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.htmlJust that it used to be something that researchers were being morally strong-armed not to look into. Or publish
No.18535
An example of oppression is twerking on Younow.
Funny how all Miley had to do is give it a label and it spreads like wildfire.
No.18537
>>18531
>Which quite possibly shows they don't desire them, yet.NYRA takes that stance because of the volatile nature of the issue. ASFAR did take a stance that was pro-sexuality, but ASFAR is all but dead sadly for being poorly run.
We also can't ignore the active sexual repression of youth. Even sexuality amongst peers is actively punished and restricted.
>I'd hardly call the pedophiles the ones in power. And if there is even a whiff of pedo things are likely to be turned around to assume it is the pedo grooming the child to fight for the right. You misunderstood, I just meant discriminated groups need those in power. Blacks needed whites, women needed men, paedophiles need hetero/homosexuals, kids need adults. Contrary to popular belief that discriminated groups handle it themselves, it is actually a shift of the views of the dominant groups thanks to defectors in the dominant groups.
>I'd say this is rare that the matter would go further than the parents/therapist of those concerned unless something traumatic was involved.Actually prosecution is rare, true, but I also meant punishment from parents and teachers. Such interactions are not embraced except by only the most sexually healthy parents.
>Whoa, just those they are attracted to and comfortable around. Though I agree an adult can be such a person. Well that's what I assumed. They wouldn't want some other person imposing themselves, but someone they like and are comfortable with.
>Tricking/lying to them about the true intention of the act, in hopes that they don't find out until sufficient time has passed that they have gotten away. And asking them to keep it a secret.Agreed, though the secret one isn't particularly malicious, it is bad.
In response to the other posters:
>you need the backing of the psychological community.Here I will post some studies in another reply, look for it after this one
The psychological community refuses to be on this side because of society and politics. It's just like with homosexuals in the mid 1900s. The evidence is there. Child sexuality is normal and strong, children like consensual sexual interactions that are fun and pleasurable. It is not harmful if adults take part in this.
>kids rights is a dead end. kids dont care about their rights, and even if they did theres nothing they can say that wouldnt be interpreted as the result of grooming.As I stated this argument was used against blacks and women as well. That they didn't care about rights. Paedophiles will not see acceptance without more societal respect for youth and children. It will not happen.
>An example of oppression is twerking on Younow.I know this is sarcasm, but that is just evidence of childhood sexuality. Twerking and fapping on cam for other people. It's normal.
No.18538
>>18537 THE STUDIES
As early as 1937, Lauretta Bender and A. Blau (“The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry) studied a group of 16 children ages 5 to 12 who had sexual contacts with adults, and examined this same group again in 1952 with A.L. Grugett. They found no problems which could reasonably be attributed to the sexual experiences. On the contrary, they concluded that children who have sexual experiences with adults frequently turn out to be “distinguished and unusually charming and attractive in their outward personalities.”
In 1956, American investigator Judson T. Landis (“Experiences of 500 Children with Adult Sexual Deviations") had come to the same results. Of 1800 students at the University of California, 30% of the boys and 35% of the girls had had such experiences. Of those who had, only 2.2% of the girls and only 0.4% of the boys thought themselves to have suffered from bad after-effects, but Landis concluded that even in these few cases the sexual experience had not been at the origin of the less desirable evolution, which was rather a symptom of an already existing trouble. With regard to the negative effects, Landis stated: “ln general, the great majority of the victims seem to recover rather soon and to acquire few permanently wrong attitudes from the experience.”
In 1972 the Dutch psychologist and sexologist Dr. Frits Bernard published a study titled “Sex met kinderen” in which he dealt with a large number of adult persons (male and female) who, as children, had had sexual contacts with adults. He subjected them to several tests. Compared to the average Dutch population, these adults proved on the main to be better balanced, more tolerant, and more self-reliant in their relations with others.
Esteemed Dutch jurist Edward Brongersma published his magnum opus “Loving Boys” during 1986 and 1990. In it, particularly the second volume, his research found that boys who had had long-term consensual relationships with men were better lovers, husbands and fathers than those who led a sexually sheltered childhood. They were also more outgoing, successful in their chosen field, had lower divorce rates and a higher average income than those who had no such experiences. Brongersma’s incredible two-volume book contains hundreds of research references and personal anecdotes. It also has very interesting chapters about the evolution of the study of sexuality in the West and about sexuality in general. It is out of print but available on IPCE.
Theo Sandfort, Dutch academic and social psychologist, found in his 1994 study “The Sexual Experiences of Children” that: “Young people who had consensual sexual experiences at a young age now have more desire for sex; they are more easily sexually aroused, and have less fear of sexual contact. These results are the same, for both girls and boys, whether the partner was an age-mate or an adult. In addition, boys who have had such experiences are, in comparison with other boys, now more satisfied with their sexual lives.” Sandfort also did a study called Boys on their Contacts With Men where he took a look at 25 child/adult relationships (in this case, boy/man) in action, and found them to have a positive influence on the children's personalities and self-concept.
No.18539
>>18538>Young people who had consensual sexual experiences at a young age now have more desire for sexIsn't this a bad thing?
No.18540
>>18539It doesn't have to be bad.
No.18541
>>18537>I know this is sarcasmNot sarcasm, girls want to twerk but Younow mods won't allow them.
No.18542
>>18521
>I have had to convince them they were hurtYou've had to do no such thing, and it's disgusting that you have done so anyway.
You might have to explain that what happened to them was a crime. You might have to explain to them that it's "bad" for various reasons, mostly because it's illegal and can, thus, have very serious consequences.
If you have tried to convince them that they were hurt, even though they experienced no physical or emotional pain from the acts themselves, *you* have abused them. Not whoever touched them.
>"we should be allowed to fuck kids whether they want to or not" and not mutual relationships.FTFY.
No.18544
>>18540Maybe if you are already married, but I feel that having a powerful sex drive and being single is just going to lead to problems for both genders. Honestly, even if you are married that could lead to problems if your partner isn't as into it as you are.
No.18545
Responses to recent posts:
>Isn't this a bad thing?
If you have a moral aversion to human sexuality maybe. However biologically this is beneficial. Sexual interactions are healthy for humans (consensual). They increase oxytocin, reduces stress, increases bonds, reduces aggression. Is it any wonder sexually open societies are more peaceful?
>Not sarcasm, girls want to twerk but Younow mods won't allow them.
Oh I see what you meant. Well yes, but most of these sites have the LEO on their ass if they let children express themselves sexually. This hatred of child sexuality and paedophilia is enforced at all levels because it is unnatural.
>You might have to explain that what happened to them was a crime. You might have to explain to them that it's "bad" for various reasons, mostly because it's illegal and can, thus, have very serious consequences.
Sadly, no, I have had to change their view on an experience they once viewed as positive and fun. At the urging of their parents and society. I have had to make them think they were hurt by someone they loved. I have helped to ruin them.
>If you have tried to convince them that they were hurt, even though they experienced no physical or emotional pain from the acts themselves, *you* have abused them. Not whoever touched them.
You are correct. And I will die a wretched man and I deserve it all. If it means anything. I am writing about all this. A book I will release when my kids are grown. About me and those like me, the real abusers of children, and how we scape goat those who love them, for money.
>FTFY.
Yup, here and on onion sites. Fight those that claim they should be just able to fuck kids. Those that call you "moral fags". Fight for yourselves and for any child who was truly raped.
>t's disgusting that you have done so anyway.
I do not deny this.
No.18553
Young people need a lot more rights. Sex isn't even an important one compared to the massive age discrimination in my country.
No.18554
>>18553More rights must naturally come with more responsibilities, and in this confusing ass world I don't think children really need more stress in their lives.
So I don't necessarily think children need more rights, they just need to be more respected and have their feelings better valued.
No.18555
>>18554Children have stress precisely because they have little in the way and rights and respect. They have no freedom of movement, no ownership of their own bodies, not even freedom of speech or though.
Kids are stressed because of compulsory schooling, which removes them from their families and forces them to be with people they may not like and with authority figures who are generally assholes.
Don't forget, rights don't have to be used. They just have to be there. I don't have to use my right to protest, but I have it. I don't have to use my right to bear arms, but I have it (oh and I do use that one).
I do agree though, children need to be respected, be taken seriously, and be treated as equally as possible. This includes sexually adventurous decisions.
>Sex isn't even an important one compared to the massive age discrimination in my country.Is it not? Children are ruined and grow up to be dysfunctional adults because their sexuality it massively repressed and heavily punished.
No.18556
>>18555Then you get all the normies rising up saying sex wasn't that important to me when I was a kid and I turned out okay.
No.18557
>>18556I am a normie. You are right, many people lie and say they never thought about it or say they were never interested. Which for most is a lie, because biology dictates we do care and are interested in it.
The reason people say that is because they are embarrassed. They think it is bad. As sexuality, including youth sexuality, becomes more open people will be more willing to admit to childhood sexual interest.
No.18559
>>18555>Kids are stressed because of compulsory schooling, which removes them from their families and forces them to be with people they may not like and with authority figures who are generally assholes.… You know education is a right, correct? And that's the perfect example of why getting rights isn't always a pleasant thing.
No.18560
>>18521>Paedophiles, I suggest being aware of and denouncing those who fetishize hurting children. They will try and slither their way in and move the discourse towards "we should be allowed to fuck kids" and not mutual relationships.As one of the people who "fetishize hurting kids" (I have a BDSM fetish, among others), I usually find I'm also one of the few people here arguing against fucking kids. Fetishes are just as involuntary as sexuality, and have no correlation with how ethical a person is.
No.18561
>… You know education is a right, correct? And that's the perfect example of why getting rights isn't always a pleasant thing.
Compulsory state education is not a right, it is a remnant of Nazi Germany. Rights are not "you have the right to forced education" are you joking?
The right is, "you have the right to choose how to learn, the freedom to learn, the freedom to choose what to learn and how to learn." What you suggest is NOT a right, it is a violation of rights. So you are incorrect.
>As one of the people who "fetishize hurting kids" (I have a BDSM fetish, among others), I usually find I'm also one of the few people here arguing against fucking kids. Fetishes are just as involuntary as sexuality, and have no correlation with how ethical a person is.
This is true, I was referring mainly to those who think they have a right to fuck kids, who try to say rape and consensual is no different because society treats it as no different. Kids may even enjoy light bondage. As a young boy I got a thrill off being tied up and tickled or kissed.
My main gripe is whether it is consensual or not. That is what matters. If you fetishize making kids cry while being sexual in some way, ie a non-consensual encounter then I think you should seek to keep it in fantasy and it is reminiscent of a dysfunctional sexuality. It is not normal to want to hurt people.
No.18564
>>18561so you're ok with prepubescent children voluntarily dropping out of school and signing their lives away
compulsory education is a right. not being allowed to destroy your future before you can comprehend it is a right.
No.18565
>>18561>Compulsory state education is not a right, it is a remnant of Nazi Germany. Rights are not "you have the right to forced education" are you joking? If it wasn't compulsory, parents could just pull you out of school to serve them drinks or something stupid like that, so it needs to be compulsory to ensure that everyone has the right to an education.
>The right is, "you have the right to choose how to learn, the freedom to learn, the freedom to choose what to learn and how to learn." What you suggest is NOT a right, it is a violation of rights. So you are incorrect.If people could learn whatever they wanted as a kid, nobody would learn math or science or any of the boring disciplines and then what would happen to society?
No.18566
What's all this off topic school stuff?
This derailing always happens when going down the rights route.
No.18567
>>18566>What's all this off topic rights stuff? i'm sorry we're talking about things besides the right to ass fuck random children
No.18573
>so you're ok with prepubescent children voluntarily dropping out of school and signing their lives away
I am okay with parents/guardians and children working together to provide freedom for the child to learn and for the parents/guardians to facilitate that learning. I am also in favor of free schools such as Sudbury schools to become more popular.
>compulsory education is a right. not being allowed to destroy your future before you can comprehend it is a right.
There is no such thing as a "right" that forces you to do something. School is far from necessary to provide ample knowledge. Force is not necessary for learning. Look up homeschooling and unschooling, Dr. Peter Gray does great work on discussing it. Read John Holt, Read Alfie Kohn. Educate yourself, no you don't need school to do it. Please refrain from commenting again until you understand what rights are. Any more comments similar to the ones you have been posting will be powerfully ignored. It is insane that you think it is a "right" to be forced into state indoctrination.
>If it wasn't compulsory, parents could just pull you out of school to serve them drinks or something stupid like that, so it needs to be compulsory to ensure that everyone has the right to an education.
In America parents do not have to send their kids to school. I homeschool my kids, in fact we unschool. They have to curriculum and only use textbooks when they want to. Which sometimes they do. The only thing I do is make sure they know at least what is considered "grade level" but they are often beyond because they have the freedom to learn. They are free.
In America, homeschooled kids statistically do better than those who attend school. So clearly compulsory schooling is far from necessary.
>If people could learn whatever they wanted as a kid, nobody would learn math or science or any of the boring disciplines and then what would happen to society?
Math and science are not boring, those are the words of someone who was forced to learn through school. When you self-educate/ decide who to learn with, then it is interesting. School deals with a lot of kids, and had to teach those subjects in the most general boring way to make sure all the kids learn. Self- learning and homeschooling allows for education and learning that matched the individual. Thus it is infinitely more interesting and fun. My daughter loves math and is multiple grade levels above schooled kids. My son is not that interested but he is grade level. I never forced them to learn a day in their life.
>This derailing always happens when going down the rights route.
It's fine. As I said, children need expanded freedom and rights, otherwise I can't see paedophiles and adult/child sexual interactions being accepted.
>i'm sorry we're talking about things besides the right to ass fuck random children
We have clearly been talking about a child's right to choose, not an adult's "right" to fuck a child. Which isn't a right by the way. There seems to be many here who have no idea what rights are.
No.18574
Virginity on a pedestal for girls.
Sex on a pedestal for boys.
No.18575
Adults say "no" for children until they grow old enough to learn to say "no" for themselves.
No.18576
>>18528>NYRA is made up of young teensTeens that are told to just wait a few years. Not to be in a rush.
No.18577
Okay the last three posts had no substance.
>Virginity on a pedestal for girls. Sex on a pedestal for boys.
Puritanical religious oldschool values that have no innate foundation in human nature as shown by countless anthropological studies.
>Adults say "no" for children until they grow old enough to learn to say "no" for themselves.
Kids are perfectly capable of expressing what they want and don't want. Having the mentality that adults should do it for them (for everything, obviously we don't let a toddler run into traffic just because he/she says yes) just ripens kids for abuse. In a society where kids can't say yes or no is a society where they are at the whims of others just because of their age. Kids are more easily abused (sexually or otherwise) in our society than in a more free and liberated (sexually or otherwise) society.
>Teens that are told to just wait a few years. Not to be in a rush.
So if I enslave someone and tell them it is for for three years and they complain, I just tell them to wait a few years and that there is no rush?
From now on I will be ignoring all illogical arguments that have no substance.
No.18586
>>18577>Puritanical religious oldschool valuesI think it should be a choice on a
familial level whether they raise their kids to share in those values.
Not something forced upon them to let go of.
Or forced upon them to uphold.
No.18587
>>18577They are perfectly capable of being tricked into thinking they want something they later realize they don't want too.
In a society where kids can say yes or no is a society where they are at the whims of others just because of their lack of knowledge.
Kids are more easily abused (sexually or otherwise) in an uneducated society than in a more educated (sexually or otherwise) society.
No.18589
>>18577>So if I enslave someoneTeens have a lot more freedoms to occupy themselves with for those three years than slaves.
It also depends on how many teens actually find it a problem and how well those that do convince teens that don't find it a problem to fight with them.
And for those teens that were fighting for it but grew up to continue fighting for it and not come to the conclusion that "Waiting isn't so bad" And "I'm glad I waited" (Sounds similar to virgin stories?)
No.18593
>I think it should be a choice on a familial level whether they raise their kids to share in those values. Not something forced upon them to let go of. Or forced upon them to uphold.
Oh I agree, however we don't live in such a society. I would raise my kids sexually open, teaching them the truth about sexuality. This would likely lead to them being more open about it and seeking to experience it. They may wish to do so with an adult, I am legally not allowed to allow that because of other people's values are forced upon me. In a violent fashion (I would go to jail and my kids would be forced into the care of another).
>They are perfectly capable of being tricked into thinking they want something they later realize they don't want too.
What? What causes harm that a kid won't realize they are being harmed? Why do you ignore parents or guardians as well to make your point? What harm the is delayed is so permanent that it can't just be chalked up to a lesson learned (such as an unfair trade of goods)? Explain yourself further otherwise your example is extremely vague with little substance.
>In a society where kids can say yes or no is a society where they are at the whims of others just because of their lack of knowledge.
Once again, being extremely vague and dealing with assumption. And again, ignoring that children have parents/guardians that make sure a child will not be too harmed or lose too much by certain decisions.
>Kids are more easily abused (sexually or otherwise) in an uneducated society than in a more educated (sexually or otherwise) society.
I agree with this, however ironically our society leaves kids incredibly uneducated about many things, sexual or otherwise. Kids go to school and learn about pointless fun facts, while real world experiences and knowledge are kept from them for years.
Especially in the sexual realm. Kids are forcibly kept from sexual information. And no, sexual education that focuses on disease and pregnancy and tries to scare kids is not education. Learning comes from experience as well as the knowledge of those more knowledgeable. Kids get most of their sexual education from peers or internet porn. Both of which are poor educators. However a loving adult who respects them is preferable.
>Teens have a lot more freedoms to occupy themselves with for those three years than slaves.
Irrelevant and subjective and situational.
>It also depends on how many teens actually find it a problem and how well those that do convince teens that don't find it a problem to fight with them.
Many, if not most, slaves did not find it to be a problem as well. This is also not a valid argument.
>And for those teens that were fighting for it but grew up to continue fighting for it and not come to the conclusion that "Waiting isn't so bad" And "I'm glad I waited" (Sounds similar to virgin stories?)
Some people's opinions should not dictate the choices of everyone else. Some teens may well prefer their current situation, this doesn't condemn every other teen to the same situation by default. Some people prefer to be virgins, but biologically most people want to be sexual from early preteens onward but are punished and socially indoctrinated not to be so.
By the way, these posts of yours are better. Thanks.
No.18596
>>18593>What? What causes harm that a kid won't realize they are being harmed?Indoctrination, both ways.
On one side we have the problems we have now with sexually frustrated teens/young adults.
On the other side we have pedos who place too much emphasis on sex.
We currently have a constipation problem. Such that needs to be relaxed carefully to prevent a mass grooming outbreak.
No.18601
>Indoctrination, both ways.
A valid concern, to be sure. One that can only be remedied with giving youth more freedom than not. A society based on undue restriction makes indoctrination that much easier. A society based on freedom, especially for youth, makes it harder for indoctrination to take place, whether familial or institutional.
>On one side we have the problems we have now with sexually frustrated teens/young adults. On the other side we have pedos who place too much emphasis on sex
I believe a lot of the pedos are all talk. I obviously could be drastically wrong, but I see a lot of talk on boards like these but statistically paedophiles generally stay celibate and those that don't don't do more than mutual touching or oral. The harm caused from the sexual frustrations also creates the fools that talk about "hyper slutting" little girls and what not. In a sexually open society people are less aggressive in their sexual desires. A lot of research has been done on this, look at the website: violence.de
>We currently have a constipation problem. Such that needs to be relaxed carefully to prevent a mass grooming outbreak
I don't like the term grooming as it is usually just used to deny a child's right to choose and claim they would never have been sexual if not for the devious manipulative paedophile. Children like pleasure and sexual pleasure, giving and receiving. The only cases of grooming I would see as legitimate would be parents/guardians training their child to be a sexual plaything. The best remedy to that is, you guessed it, more freedom for the child. In the end though you can't stop all evil.
No.18602
>>18573>I homeschool my kids>So clearly compulsory schooling is far from necessary.It's still compulsory, and the state is watching your ass every step of the way.
You're a fucking moron if you don't think compulsory education is compulsory just because you get to choose where it happens.
No.18604
>>18601>A valid concern, to be sure. One that can only be remedied with giving youth more freedom than not. A society based on undue restriction makes indoctrination that much easier. A society based on freedom, especially for youth, makes it harder for indoctrination to take place, whether familial or institutional.Yes giving me free reign to indoctrinate my kid into literally whatever I want makes it harder for me to indoctrinate them.
>hurf durf they'll learn the truth from other people or some shitGuess what you stupid motherfucker, you also gave kids "freedom of movement."
Guess what that means? It means my kid's never gonna EVER be talking to anyone I don't approve of, and because I've completely indoctrinated their ignorant ass, that's just the way they like it and thus you or anyone else don't have ANY recourse of disabusing them.
>I don't like the term grooming too bad, call it whatever you want but it exists.
you want to make it easier, way easier.
No.18606
>>18604>hurf durf … or some shit>you stupid motherfucker No.18607
Hmm I think I saw someone reply to me, but I have a difficult time reading the scribbles of illogical cavemen. Anyone else with something rational to say want to contribute? Some of you are providing stimulating discussion.
At this point I want to refer to two sites that are great if you are interested in intellectual discussion. They are better than chan sites because moronic anons can't shit post.
Annabelleigh.net
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/boychat.org
visionsofalice.com
No.18608
>I want to refer to two sites
Um, I meant four.
Apparently I can't count.
No.18609
>disgusting worthless subhuman upset that someone insulted him on an imageboard
or you could not be as pathetic as you possibly can and admit you have no rebuttal, shithead.
utterly fucking pathetic.
No.18612
>>18601>I believe a lot of the pedos are all talk.Mainly because of the law. As much as they my take the selfless approach and refer to not doing anything due to the child being harmed.
>and those that don't don't do more than mutual touching or oralI agree that most of the "virgin" pedos would be happy for just mutual touching and masturbation to start out.
A bit worried about those who use loli as a placeholder for CP since loli has a tendency to go overboard due to being drawings.
>In a sexually open society people are less aggressive in their sexual desires.After the initial diarrhea yes.
I feel a nudist community would probably have the least trouble transitioning.
No.18613
>>18601>Educating, Teaching, Training, Rearing, Indoctrination, Brainwashing, Grooming.All usable terms. Some with positive connotation, some with negative. Be sure the worst will be used to fight something people are opposed.
Whatever they choose to call it there still remains the constipation problem which more freedom for the child won't help.
Sure if the child is raised to like sex such that they don't find it harmful and thus with the freedom to choose to do it. Another similar argument could be made about masochism and bestiality.
Which then turns it into either:
1) a morals debate of where to draw the line or if there should even be a line.
2) a utility debate of whether the benefits of allowing it outweigh the benefits of disallowing it.
No.18615
>>18612>pedos would be happy for just mutual touching and masturbation to start out. >to startWhat about a year down the line? 2 years? Are they still going to be happy then? It's the easiest thing in the world to say you won't go overboard when you can't get on board in the first place. Do you think drug addicts start out knowing where they're gonna end up?
>>18613>Sure if the child is raised to like sex such that they don't find it harmful and thus with the freedom to choose to do it.I would suggest someone raised to never say no never had freedom of choice.
Get rid of all the laws in the world if you like, children by their nature will always be subject to the whims of adults.
I see pedos conflate less laws with more freedom way too much. It simply isn't true. Wherever you eliminate a law you naturally replace it with might makes right, every time. Children are not the mighty.
No.18616
>Mainly because of the law. As much as they my take the selfless approach and refer to not doing anything due to the child being harmed.
This mentality assumes paedophiles are naturally abusive. I think the majority refrain because of care for the child. As with any sexuality paedophiles fall in love. And again, the majority who are sexual with children do not hurt them, and they rarely penetrate to the levels that may hurt a child.
>I agree that most of the "virgin" pedos would be happy for just mutual touching and masturbation to start out. A bit worried about those who use loli as a placeholder for CP since loli has a tendency to go overboard due to being drawings.
Yes, but most people can separate fantasy and reality. Especially drawn. If society was more sexually open, information would be given and spread so that paeodphiles and children would be together mutually and pleasurably both ways. There would be education. As it stands now the problem is paedophiles often enter communities such as /hebe/ where there is much disrespect, shaming, aggression, etc. Again sexual openness will remedy a lot of this, and we can be on guard for the innate sadists.
>After the initial diarrhea yes. I feel a nudist community would probably have the least trouble transitioning.
I do not advocate just opening the flood gates. I think a lot of abuse would happen if suddenly sexual contact with children was legal. Mostly because of sex negative attitudes towards sexual females and very discriminatory views against children. I believe children need to be seen more equally and more respectfully. These things take time.
>Whatever they choose to call it there still remains the constipation problem which more freedom for the child won't help.
But how won't it help? A free child will not be cowed by someone taking advantage of them. Most abuse happens because kids are raised to listen to adults, so when an adult says "spread your legs and be quiet" they are more likely to listen. Because of sexual ignorance brought on by society they will be confused and unable to articulate what happened and remain quiet. A free child who is knowledgeable will either fight back (in the case of older children) or tell someone regardless of any nonsense an abuser may say.
>Sure if the child is raised to like sex such that they don't find it harmful and thus with the freedom to choose to do it. Another similar argument could be made about masochism and bestiality.
Children do not need to be raised to like sex. All the biological functions are there for them to innately like it. Children are sexually repressed. So it is shoved out of sight. And as you know, even then kids still find ways to be sexual, and with the internet they broadcast it.
With bestiality or masochism there is generally no innate desire for it and especially with masochism there is an aversion, a natural one. So that is why you can't compare allowing a child to express their innate natural sexuality and raising a child to suck animals off or get spanked for pleasure. In the BDSM realm kids would likely have fun with light BDSM but nothing crazy.
>1) a morals debate of where to draw the line or if there should even be a line. 2) a utility debate of whether the benefits of allowing it outweigh the benefits of disallowing it.
As I said, this is about free choice and allowing a child to express themselves sexually. Not about forcing them to be sexual in a certain way. Most people would not raise little sexual playthings and those that would are not stopped because of the law and are only empowered because of forced societal sexual repression of youth.
No.18617
>What about a year down the line? 2 years? Are they still going to be happy then? It's the easiest thing in the world to say you won't go overboard when you can't get on board in the first place. Do you think drug addicts start out knowing where they're gonna end up?
Drug addictions has nothing to do with this topic at all. Sharing physical affection is a two way street. Most people do just fine with it. Only the sexually repressed or mentally disturbed rape and/or molest.
Your criticism can also be applied to any sexuality and it falls flat on its face.
>I would suggest someone raised to never say no never had freedom of choice. Get rid of all the laws in the world if you like, children by their nature will always be subject to the whims of adults.
On the first sentence, no one said to raise a child to never say no. You raise a child allowing them to make the decision to say yes or no and as a parent/guardian you make sure their decision will not permanently harm them in some way.
On the second sentence, children by nature do not obey adults, they are at a physical and mental disadvantage, yes, but that is why they have parents and guardians.
>I see pedos conflate less laws with more freedom way too much. It simply isn't true. Wherever you eliminate a law you naturally replace it with might makes right, every time. Children are not the mighty.
This is not correct. There is less restriction and law throughout the world than ever in history, people are more free, and the world is more peaceful than it ever has been, and more open minded. You are very uneducated in this area and place a ridiculous amount of faith in the state. You also keep ignoring that children have parents and guardians, merely to try and pull emotional strings.
No.18618
>>18616>This mentality assumes paedophiles are naturally abusive.No it doesn't, it assumes that people naturally obey the law. You're making just as much assumptions as he is.
> A free child will not be cowed by someone taking advantage of them.Are you fucking retarded? Everything following that has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with a better education, which you apparently are totally fine with children having the "choice" to not have. Besides the fact that it's just fucking wrong.
You don't raise a child to trust adults. Children naturally, instinctively trust adults. You don't have to raise children to trust adults, you have to actively break them of that trust if you don't want them to have it.
Why do you think you have to tell your kid not to trust strangers? Because if you don't tell them that they fucking will.
Children will never be free. They will always be subject to their guardians.
Have a child raised by dogs, and he'll bark like a dog.
No.18619
>>18616>This mentality assumes paedophiles are naturally abusive.The thing is pedophiles assume this of themselves
No.18620
>>18616>A free child will not be cowed by someone taking advantage of them.An educated child will not be cowed by someone taking advantage of them.
A free child just gets to decide whether they consider themselves taken advantage of or not.
Education is what is needed before freedom is necessary.
However, parents want to hold onto their innocent children for as long as possible before the inevitable education period comes around.
No.18621
>>18620>Education is what is needed before freedom is necessary.EXACTLY
Armchair psychologist is putting the cart before the horse.
No.18622
>>18616>Most abuse happens because kids are raised to listen to adults so when an adult says "spread your legs and be quiet" they are more likely to listen.Unless they are first groomed to say no to adults who say stuff like that.
>A free child who is knowledgeableAgain leading back to education precluding freedom. Based on whoever gets to groom them first.
No.18623
>No it doesn't, it assumes that people naturally obey the law. You're making just as much assumptions as he is.
Your reading comprehension is shoddy.
>Children naturally, instinctively trust adults. You don't have to raise children to trust adults, you have to actively break them of that trust if you don't want them to have it.
Why do you think you have to tell your kid not to trust strangers? Because if you don't tell them that they fucking will.
You are a very unintelligent person that severely needs work on reading comprehension. I never said trust, I said obey. Children do trust people who are nice to them, but they do not obey once a person becomes nasty. Children naturally disobey when they don't like something or why do you think there is a multi-million dollar industry about making children obey?
Say the old man down the street says "hey let me do something that feels good" and the little girl says "okay". Well he licks and kisses her vagina and she likes it. There isn't anything wrong with this situation other than the fact that she is unaware of potential disease which the adult is responsible for if he spreads it. Now let's say the man says "here this will feel good" and he starts sticking his dick up her ass, she will fight it and say stop, she will not obey and accept it just because he is an adult. Regardless this situation is ridiculously rare.
I think there is a lot of projection in what you say.
Anyway I've said my piece here. I've listed multiple good sites and multiple studies about adult/child sexual interactions. I will post them again as a parting gift.
No.18624
>>18622>whoever gets to groom them firstThe thing about this is that the law dictates in which way grooming is allowed. Whether everyone likes it or not. That is what I disagree with.
No.18625
>EXACTLY Armchair psychologist is putting the cart before the horse.
I see a guy coming with rational discussion and dumb fucks hurling insults and saying some dumb fucking shit, like saying state education is needed for freedom. One of the dumbest fucking things I have ever heard in my life. Holy fuck yall some dumb fucks.
No.18626
>>18617>On the first sentence, no one said to raise a child to never say no.The entire premise of your argument is letting guardians teach their children whatever they please.
> You raise a child allowing them to make the decision to say yes or no and as a parent/guardian you make sure their decision will not permanently harm them in some way.And if I don't? What are you going to do about it? My child is "free" to believe whatever I tell him.
>On the second sentence, children by nature do not obey adults, they are at a physical and mental disadvantage, yes, but that is why they have parents and guardians.Yes they fucking do you abysmal fuckstain.
You are not just backing up your worthless argument with nothing, you're actually 'backing it up' with points that directly refute it.
Children naturally obey adults. This is reality. You have to teach them not to blindly trust. Nothing you can say will ever contradict this.
No.18627
>The thing about this is that the law dictates in which way grooming is allowed. Whether everyone likes it or not. That is what I disagree with.
Yes yes yes you need to groom kids to like pleasure. Yes that makes loads of sense.
No.18628
>>18618>Are you fucking retarded?>it's just fucking wrong.>>18621>Armchair psychologist>>18623>Your reading comprehension>You are a very unintelligent person that severely needs work on reading comprehension No.18629
>Children naturally obey adults. This is reality
How does it feel being a fucking idiot and saying literally nonsense. Hahahahahaha you are fucking STUPID my friend. Children naturally obey adults LMAO someone has never interacted with children, get out of your basement stop masturbating to child porn and go interact with REAL kids u moronic fucking idiot.
No.18630
>>18625>BAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWW STOP BEING MEAN ONLINE GUYS!!!!!Pathetic.
No.18631
>>18629This is satire written specifically to make the namefag seem like an idiot to ruin his credibility.
No.18632
As early as 1937, Lauretta Bender and A. Blau (“The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry) studied a group of 16 children ages 5 to 12 who had sexual contacts with adults, and examined this same group again in 1952 with A.L. Grugett. They found no problems which could reasonably be attributed to the sexual experiences. On the contrary, they concluded that children who have sexual experiences with adults frequently turn out to be “distinguished and unusually charming and attractive in their outward personalities.”
In 1956, American investigator Judson T. Landis (“Experiences of 500 Children with Adult Sexual Deviations") had come to the same results. Of 1800 students at the University of California, 30% of the boys and 35% of the girls had had such experiences. Of those who had, only 2.2% of the girls and only 0.4% of the boys thought themselves to have suffered from bad after-effects, but Landis concluded that even in these few cases the sexual experience had not been at the origin of the less desirable evolution, which was rather a symptom of an already existing trouble. With regard to the negative effects, Landis stated: “ln general, the great majority of the victims seem to recover rather soon and to acquire few permanently wrong attitudes from the experience.”
In 1972 the Dutch psychologist and sexologist Dr. Frits Bernard published a study titled “Sex met kinderen” in which he dealt with a large number of adult persons (male and female) who, as children, had had sexual contacts with adults. He subjected them to several tests. Compared to the average Dutch population, these adults proved on the main to be better balanced, more tolerant, and more self-reliant in their relations with others.
Esteemed Dutch jurist Edward Brongersma published his magnum opus “Loving Boys” during 1986 and 1990. In it, particularly the second volume, his research found that boys who had had long-term consensual relationships with men were better lovers, husbands and fathers than those who led a sexually sheltered childhood. They were also more outgoing, successful in their chosen field, had lower divorce rates and a higher average income than those who had no such experiences. Brongersma’s incredible two-volume book contains hundreds of research references and personal anecdotes. It also has very interesting chapters about the evolution of the study of sexuality in the West and about sexuality in general. It is out of print but available on IPCE.
Theo Sandfort, Dutch academic and social psychologist, found in his 1994 study “The Sexual Experiences of Children” that: “Young people who had consensual sexual experiences at a young age now have more desire for sex; they are more easily sexually aroused, and have less fear of sexual contact. These results are the same, for both girls and boys, whether the partner was an age-mate or an adult. In addition, boys who have had such experiences are, in comparison with other boys, now more satisfied with their sexual lives.” Sandfort also did a study called Boys on their Contacts With Men where he took a look at 25 child/adult relationships (in this case, boy/man) in action, and found them to have a positive influence on the children's personalities and self-concept.
No.18633
>>18628>disgusting worthless subhuman totally incapable of even attempting rebuttal>must resort to crying about meanies on the internet >takes off his name in a pathetically desperate attempt at samefagginggod it's beautiful.
No.18634
>>18632Literally not a single poster in this thread suggested that children don't like sex or can't benefit from it.
Not even one single post.
You're spitting out irrelevant citations instead of actually addressing points, because you know you can't.
No.18635
>god it's beautiful.
plot twist, I am everyone in this thread, including you and have multiple personality disorder and am merely just arguing with myself and my split personalities.
And this is why chan sites are terrible and I usually avoid them like the plague. Especially ones that can easily be posted to through TOR.
Again if anyone is interested in actual discussion, whether you are for or against prochoice. I highly suggest visiting the sites I listed.
No.18636
>>18623>Say the old man down the street says "hey let me do something that feels good" and the little girl says "okay". Well he licks and kisses her vagina and she likes it. There isn't anything wrong with this situation other than the fact that she is unaware of potential disease which the adult is responsible for if he spreads it. Now let's say the man says "here this will feel good" and he starts sticking his dick up her ass, she will fight it and say stop, she will not obey and accept it just because he is an adult.Agreed, however this has little to do with a child's rights.
What's probably more worthy of note are cases where there's a loving father separated from his daughter because of the law and despite the daughter wanting the father back 'too bad'. No those are stories that are more geared towards children's rights. As you said at the beginning you are a psychologist so
surely you should have experienced some of those cases.
No.18637
>Literally not a single poster in this thread suggested that children don't like sex or can't benefit from it. Not even one single post. You're spitting out irrelevant citations instead of actually addressing points, because you know you can't.
HUR DUR GROOOOOOOMING TO MAKE KIDS BE OKAY WITH SEX BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULDNT BE
Oh LOOK NO ONE SAID KIDS DONT LIKE SEX
No.18638
>>18633>pathetically desperate attempt at samefaggingNah. There's at
least 3 posters here.
No.18639
>Agreed, however this has little to do with a child's rights.
I know, I was just illustrating that kids do not naturally obey like some have suggested. That they make clear what they want and don't want and the problem is people ignoring them.
>What's probably more worthy of note are cases where there's a loving father separated from his daughter because of the law and despite the daughter wanting the father back 'too bad'. No those are stories that are more geared towards children's rights. As you said at the beginning you are a psychologist so surely you should have experienced some of those cases.
Divorce cases are some of the worst. However helping kids navigate such situations is incredibly rewarding. Unlike with sexual encounters, I can actually help them. Yes you are correct, this is more common and more relevant to the child's rights as their opinion is often ignored.
No.18640
>>18635ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
We've given you actual discussion, and you've totally ignored it with the pathetic excuse of "baww stop being mean to me."
Actually challenge the points we've given to you and I'll stop being mean to you, retard.
Too bad you've also totally ruined your credibility, whatever it was.
>>18638Sure.
There's the delirious namefag, and there is
>>18636, and then there's me,
>>18634 No.18641
>>18636>As you said at the beginning you are a psychologist so surely you should have experienced some of those cases.Spoiler alert, he's a liar.
No.18642
>We've given you actual discussion, and you've totally ignored it with the pathetic excuse of "baww stop being mean to me."
Actually challenge the points we've given to you and I'll stop being mean to you, retard.
He is ignoring you and your dumb fuckery trolling. Anyone with have an ounce of a fucking brain can see he is having a fucking normal discussion with the other guy who is responding like a human, not fucking idiot like u u attention whoring faggot
No.18643
>>18641As I said in my first post in this thread
>As fake as this whole thing sounds from the title alone.However, I will indulge for the time being.
No.18644
>>18637Literally no one has said this you pathetic disgusting freak.
Point to a single post that has.
Just one.
Go ahead, I'll wait for you to embarrass yourself further.
No.18645
>>18642It's getting to the point where this is just cringe worthy.
There's no way this is for real.
No.18648
>>18639>I know, I was just illustrating that kids do not naturally obey like some have suggested. You gave us an example of a little girl blindly trusting some strange man not to be a child murdering psychopath without a moments hesitation.
>but they do not obey once a person becomes nasty.Which is why I precisely stated
>you have to actively break them of that trustYour own arguments are defeating themselves.
You yourself have directly stated that children will obey UNTIL you fuck them over.
This SUPPORTS the claim that children naturally obey.
You have to overtly fuck them over with a direct physical transgression against their bodies and inflict pain upon them to get them to stop obeying you.
This is what allows psychopaths to easily lure and manipulate children.
Because they naturally obey.
No.18674
On a similar note you can groom kids to not be okay with sex.
No.23964
>>18545
This is a good thread and deserves a bump, even if it's necro. We just need to condense this shit into easily spreadable info and articles to share.
No.23965
>>18586
Very important point.
A families' right to choose, after all.
No.23980
>>23978
So are you pro or against this?
No.23983
>>18648
The solution to this is parental guidance and education, not blind idiocy. Even if this were true, it's not your call to make.
No.24064
>>18587
The same thing can happen with adults. Its not a given that adults are always right. The same way a child can be manipulated by someone a parent can be tricked by what they hear or what society tells them.
No.24065
>>18648
not op.
>This SUPPORTS the claim that children naturally obey.
I think that's because that's what society expects from children. Whenever a child disagrees with an adult they will be ignored or repressed without consideration. You can see that all the time and that's specifically because they aren't treated seriously!
No.24071
>>24065
Disagreeing is not the same thing as disobeying.
Children naturally obey.
No.24076
>>24071
Sorry, that's kinda of what i meant with disagreeing. Even if they disagree they will be repressed forcing them to obey. If they were considered they would end up thinking before doing something and notice when someone is just trying to get them to do something without even considering what they have to say.
No.24122
>>24076
>If they were considered they would end up thinking before doing something
All evidence points to no, not true.
No.24130
>>24071
>Children naturally obey.
Are you fucking kidding me, or have you literary never been with a child?
Sage for autism
No.24176
>>24130
A parents says something like, "do this dull chore." Then the kids says, "aww, I don't want to." Then the kid does the dull chore.
No.24215
>>18521
I haven't read the whole thread but just from OP, I got the urge to express a need for caution.
First, free choice (not only as in 'adults and kids being allowed to choose to partake in sexual interactions') is a very complex, complicated, and multi-faceted issue. Whole disquisitions have been delivered on that matter by philosophers throughout history. The only thing we can tell for sure is that both assuming there is free choice as well as assuming there is no such thing as free choice leads to eventually uncomfortable conclusions. Neurology doesn't help there either.
Second, whether or not kids are 'naturally interested in sexual exploration', it would most certainly be hard to differentiate between sexual interactions evolving from a child's wishes and 'because an adult says so, a kid has to partake'. If it were that easy, no discussion would ever have been put around the question of simple vs. informed consent etc. – and consider, that whole 'free choice for children' thing was already around fourty, fifty years ago.
Third, your whole third paragraph sounds a bit strange because you mix paedophilia (love, or maybe just attraction, or both, towards children) with child sexuality (as first described by Freud and later researched by sexology) and taking children seriously (might be apart from sexuality). While it's true that there might be a connection, one shouldn't overrate that possible connection. Correlation doesn't imply causality. By the way, you don't have to tell children who come into therapy after an 'abuse' that 'they were hurt and the person who masturbated with them abused them'. On the contrary, if you're positive it's that what will hurt them more than the 'abuse' itself, why don't you do some 'damage limitation' avoiding at least that 'damage'? I don't know what exactly your profession is, but a psycho-therapist is supposed to show children who've been 'abused' sympathy in order to 'embalm' their 'damaged' psyches. No-one can force them into brainwashing – especially as due to confidentiality, nobody is supposed to learn about what happened in therapy.
Fourth and finally, the 'advancement of youth rights' and the 'paedophile cause' are two different kettle of fish. The former is a (more or less) well-defined development in our society, a development which has been going on for, say, a century. They've achieved a great deal – for instance that parents aren't allowed to cane children for educational purposes anymore in many places. The latter, on the other hand, what you call 'the paedophile cause', is neither well-defined nor effectively clear. We don't really know what the best solution should be, the solution that helps paedophiles best – many vivid discussions on this board may serve as evidence. There is a vast spectrum of child-adult sexual relationship allowance levels, AoC handling possibilities, consent-abuse thresholds, and ultimately, paedophile self-conception. Paedophiles aren't a homogeneous group, they're very heterogeneous indeed. You won't find a 'one and only' (BTW, The One? STO?) solution for all paedophiles, and thus there isn't 'the' paedophile cause.