Link to the site (http://www.martijn.org/)

To attract attention to their cause "for acceptance of pedophilia and adult-child love relationships" the MARTIJN-foundation released a list of songs which either:
Were sung by children Are aimed at a young audience Are about children or Pedophiliac related Are about Pedophiles Are sung by (alleged) Pedophiles Show children in their video
You can vote on your personal Pedo top 100 by sending an email.

The MARTIJN foundation have a goal to offer a counterbalance to the dogma that children and youngsters are harmed by friendships and loving intimacy with older persons. This list is a way to draw attention. It has drawn media attention and some listed artists are going to court to get their names and songs off the list. Other artists say that their songs can be listed by anyone for anything; even if they don't support the goals for the list.

Should you be able to get of a top 100 nominee list if you don't want to be on it ?

BTW: The list (in Dutch) (http://www.martijn.org/page.php?id=120000). Most of the songs are English-languaged.

Disgusting, evil people.

I ask that this post be removed. I think bringing attention to a site that advocates pedophelia is in poor taste.

I know it's just my opinion, but I thought I should type it.

Amazing Grace has pedophiliac undertones? Umm, okay, whatever.

Do the Bartman?!?

Though I guess this is just nominees.

Does the site linked have advertising on it? Are people clicking it getting them more money?

Disgusting.

...or NAMBLA...

Perverts...

Does the site linked have advertising on it? Are people clicking it getting them more money?No. I suppose people are driving up their webstats, though.

So many firms are eager to have their advertisements associated with pedophilia, after all... ;)

El Machinae -> no there is no advertising on it.

Thanks for considering my concerns, guys. My partner works with sexual abuse victims, and 90% of them are kids, and I have a pretty soft heart for the victims, and a strong urge to reduce the number of victims of sexual abuse.

Thanks for considering my concerns, guys. My partner works with sexual abuse victims, and 90% of them are kids, and I have a pretty soft heart for the victims, and a strong urge to reduce the number of victims of sexual abuse.I have the same urge.
I also have an urge to protect and not-condemn the innocent. Pedophilia is "attraction to children". Pedosexuality is the act itself. The last one is absolutely unforgivable. The first one is an attraction that even Pedohiliacs are ashamed off, but have to live with. As long as they don't touch children; it is not bad. Being a Pedophiliac is not (and should never be) a crime.

In case you are wondering; I am not a Pedophiliac in any way.

Oh, you're right that it can be seen as a sickness. But as soon as they take one step towards legalizing it ... I'm all over it.

Okay, it is safe to safe to say the Dutch have gone to far.

The Dutch ?

By the way, I have no desire to look at the link, but the statement that:

"The MARTIJN foundation have a goal to offer a counterbalance to the dogma that children and youngsters are harmed by friendships and loving intimacy with older persons"

is merely a bit of sophistry designed to obfuscate the real issue: this is a foundation that in
fact advocates "loving intimacy" between children and older persons. Revolting.

The Dutch ?
Sorry. That was out of line. I will change it.

My wrist-mounted bayonets are sharpened and ready to annihilate anyone who would harm helpless kids.

I might be a hardcase ideologically most of the time, but I have my limits.
Hearing of innocent urchins abused makes me weep tears of ultra-violence.

.

Thanks Babbler :).

Using violence as a solution? You? Curt? I'm amazed!

I still don't know the ethics of clicking on the link - I have a feeling it would be a bad thing to do.

Using violence as a solution? You? Curt? I'm amazed!

There is only ONE solution for pedos of any flavour...The slaughter solution.

Filthy predatory sub-humans.

I still don't know the ethics of clicking on the link - I have a feeling it would be a bad thing to do.

Such sites I consider to be very bad news. Let the Feds sort them out.

I would seriously advise against clicking any links of that nature...

.

There is only ONE solution for pedos of any flavour...The slaughter solution.


See, that's my solution to drug dealers and bikers, but I can't get any support.

See, that's my solution to drug dealers and bikers, but I can't get any support.

I am with you on that druggie low-life elimination thought.

Some Bikers are OK, but too many are contaminated with crime.

.

:vomit:
Those people make me sick. Pedophiles need to be marched out into the desert and shot.

That's not very nice. Why do you want to punish the desert?

That's not very nice. Why do you want to punish the desert?
Well, burning them alive would leave a lot of smoke in the air, and I don't want to contaminate our oxygen supply with them.

You are realising that you are talking about people who -most likely- never touched a child in the way you are thinking ? We're talking about people who probably hate themselves deeply for having these feelings towards children. People who haven't committed a crime.

No - they didn't read the explaining post - they're talking about the ones who will eventually assault a child, or take proactive steps to be allowed to assualt a child.

Are they petitioning for civil unions or partnerships I wonder?;)

Who knows...in 100 more years maybe this type of behaviour will be accepted once again. Seems like it was all the rage in ancient greece, part of a young boys journey to manhood and all that. I believe I once heard someone say that since we have been doing it for thousands of years it must be "normal".

That site is so disgusting, if it is a serious site and not a hoax I would vote for the castration of everyone who has ever registered there.... with a rusty spoon.

:vomit:
Those people make me sick. Pedophiles need to be marched out into the desert and shot.

Why waste perfectly good bullets?

Finally! Thank God! At last the rights of good, honest paedophiles are beginning to be recognised in society. For too long have we lived in this barbaric state in which we still have second class citizens, legal and social underlings no less, whose very essence of being is denied them by law and common sentiment. We should herald the day when we recognise the rights and needs of all members in society, and yes, that includes The Bestialites! :rolleyes:

Finally! Thank God! At last the rights of good, honest paedophiles are beginning to be recognised in society. For too long have we lived in this barbaric state in which we still have second class citizens, legal and social underlings no less, whose very essence of being is denied them by law and common sentiment. We should herald the day when we recognise the rights and needs of all members in society, and yes, that includes The Bestialites! :rolleyes:


Yup yup....remember the word..."Tolerance".:goodjob:

You are realising that you are talking about people who -most likely- never touched a child in the way you are thinking ? We're talking about people who probably hate themselves deeply for having these feelings towards children. People who haven't committed a crime.
It is good they hate themselves for it, there is hope for their recovery if they recognise it for the perversion it is. The desert was intended for those who either tried or have harmed a child. Such people deserve no mercy.

Finally! Thank God! At last the rights of good, honest paedophiles are beginning to be recognised in society. For too long have we lived in this barbaric state in which we still have second class citizens, legal and social underlings no less, whose very essence of being is denied them by law and common sentiment. We should herald the day when we recognise the rights and needs of all members in society, and yes, that includes The Bestialites! :rolleyes:

I agree! Lets start a civil rights movement!:mischief: :nuke: :eek: :rolleyes:

Yup yup....remember the word..."Tolerance".:goodjob:

Although you are joking as that is a common word now, 'tolerance' doesn't apply. I can tolerate most things between consenting ADULTS, such as gay marriage, prostitution, drug use, etc., even if I don't agree with the intelligence of some of them such as drug use. We don't tolerate non-consenting things such as stealing, rape or murder. Children cannot consent and taking advantage of them is worse than murder.

Finally! Thank God! At last the rights of good, honest paedophiles are beginning to be recognised in society. For too long have we lived in this barbaric state in which we still have second class citizens, legal and social underlings no less, whose very essence of being is denied them by law and common sentiment. We should herald the day when we recognise the rights and needs of all members in society, and yes, that includes The Bestialites! :rolleyes:I despise pedosexuals as much as you do. I am fiercely against the death-penalty; but those women (and men) that prey on children sexualy make me doubt my opinion on the death-penalty. But those aren't the ones we are talking about.
It is good they hate themselves for it, there is hope for their recovery if they recognise it for the perversion it is. The desert was intended for those who either tried or have harmed a child. Such people deserve no mercy.There is no cure for hetero-sexuality, homosexuality and there is no cure for Pedophiliac feelings. There are treatments and protocols that reduce the chance of children getting harmed, to nearly 0%.

I believe that you cannot condemn a person on their feelings.

I believe that you cannot condemn a person on their feelings.

I concur, but I can certainly condemn them for their actions!!

Although you are joking as that is a common word now, 'tolerance' doesn't apply. I can tolerate most things between consenting ADULTS, such as gay marriage, prostitution, drug use, etc., even if I don't agree with the intelligence of some of them such as drug use. We don't tolerate non-consenting things such as stealing, rape or murder. Children cannot consent and taking advantage of them is worse than murder.

Yes, I am being pretty sarcastic. However, much of the same arguments to justify other lifestyle choices can easily be applied here as well. Like, you cant change someones feelings, its been done for ages so it must be normal, they really have no choice in it so its normal, its genetic, etc. etc.

Hmmmm. The state where I am from the minimum legal age for sex is 16 years old. Is it younger in Europe? At what age can a child be consider to be able to consent? Most assuredly, kids have sex younger than this...are they consenting? And if its ok between kids, then......

I would also say its a law that is unevenly punished. Typically a woman having sex with an underage boy will get a much lighter sentence (if at all) than a man who has sex with an underage girl. Those that seem to have same sex variations on this theme are punished even hasher for some reason.

Also, let me be perfectly frank.....Having three kids, I abhor pedophiles probably more than most of you here.

Do sites like those fall under the protection of the 1st amendment?

Pedophiliacs, strange and disgusting people. Time to take NAMBLA down.

Do sites like those fall under the protection of the 1st amendment?

The site is not American so it wouldnt apply.

When people think of pedophiles, they think of a fat 50-year-old man abusing and raping a 5-year-old kid.

However, technically a 19-year-old girl sleeping with a 16-year-old boy is also a pedophile.

And frankly WHEN BOTH ARE CONSENT I do not blame a 35-year-old woman who sleeps with a 15-year-old kid, I remember being that age and dreaming precisely that. So why should a 35-year-old man who sleeps with a 15-year-old girl be to blame ? And what about two homosexuals of 35 and 15 years of age repsectively ?

So my question is : where do you set the limit, and why ?
("I know it when I see it" is not a valid answer :) )

According to research most pedophiles have been victims of pedophilia as children too. Ussually when a child is trying very hard to understand completely another person, he/she ends up losing the mental line between the object of the observation, and the observer, and so becomes something very similar to the person he/she was trying to understand.

Do sites like those fall under the protection of the 1st amendment?

Generally, yes. As evil as I find these people I'd tread lightly on making sites illegal.

Hmmmm. The state where I am from the minimum legal age for sex is 16 years old. Is it younger in Europe? At what age can a child be consider to be able to consent? Most assuredly, kids have sex younger than this...are they consenting? And if its ok between kids, then......

Just like it varies by state in the US, it varies by nation in the EU. Sixteen seems to be the average for most places, with a few higher or lower. I consider pedophilia to be pre-pubresent, so that would be even younger and should be punished worse than murder. I wouldn't consider a 40 year old and a 15 year old pedophilia, just illegal to protect 'young adults' from older abusers of emotional maturity. At 15, a 'young adult' may be consenting and many are with their peers, but it should be illegal with an older adult. At 5, a kid ain't consenting.

Hmmmm. The state where I am from the minimum legal age for sex is 16 years old. Is it younger in Europe? At what age can a child be consider to be able to consent? Most assuredly, kids have sex younger than this...are they consenting? And if its ok between kids, then......
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

There is no cure for hetero-sexuality, homosexuality and there is no cure for Pedophiliac feelings. There are treatments and protocols that reduce the chance of children getting harmed, to nearly 0%.

I believe that you cannot condemn a person on their feelings.
If it can be treated, it can be cured, just because we do not know what the cure is, does not rule out it's existence, and given enough time and effort, it will be found. You are right that people cannot be condemned for their feelings, but they can be condemned for failing to control them. Certain desires are sick and unnatural and should be suppressed by those prone to them.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Holy cow...some of those nations have the age as low as 12 years old. Thats amazing.

In answer to Masquerouge's question, I would set the age limit at 18. At that age people should be old enough to serve in the army, have sex, get married, drink, and smoke.

Spain has it at 13? I didnt know that :groucho: Im not sure if that is better or worse than the ussual 16. Moreover most people dont have sex at that age anyway

Certain desires are sick and unnatural and should be suppressed by those prone to them.

What you say is true only if you add "in certain places, in certain times."

I don't think there has been one behaviour universally and eternally forbidden.

Don't get me wrong : I'm not a big fan of pedophilia. But I strongly feel we should be less certain and absolute in our condemnations, especially concerning norms and morals.

By providing many motivations to not assault children, the control systems for controlling these desires are a lot stronger - even in those who have a problem.

The truth is, if it wasn't so oppressed, people wouldn't be able to control it as well.

In answer to Masquerouge's question, I would set the age limit at 18. At that age people should be old enough to serve in the army, have sex, get married, drink, and smoke.


Actually, I would say that you should be able to have sex when your body is ready for it.
The fact that nowadays people are often seen as not mature enough at that time is ethnologically interesting.

Well, supporting a family at thirteen is a lot harder than it used to be.

WHEN BOTH ARE CONSENT I do not blame a 35-year-old woman who sleeps with a 15-year-old kid, I remember being that age and dreaming precisely that. So why should a 35-year-old man who sleeps with a 15-year-old girl be to blame ? And what about two homosexuals of 35 and 15 years of age repsectively?

So my question is : where do you set the limit, and why ?
("I know it when I see it" is not a valid answer :) )
Well, where do you set the limit? 16, 15, 13, 10, 7?

Well, supporting a family at thirteen is a lot harder than it used to be.

I wouldn't be so sure about that actually. I would rather say that a increasing standards of living and education are making society less and less inclined to obey evolutionnary instincts.

Well, where do you set the limit? 16, 15, 13, 10, 7?

As said above, puberty. But I like the subtle way you're trying to imply, by a pseudo-mathemathical suit, that I would support sex with kids :)

I ask that this post be removed. I think bringing attention to a site that advocates pedophelia is in poor taste.

I know it's just my opinion, but I thought I should type it.

You'll get no argument here.

I am pretty liberal, and i don't have a problem with two consenting adults (16+) doing anything they want together even as a bussiness transaction (must be 18 to enter into a contract), although it seems unuseal i don't mind people dressing up like monkeys, wearing nappies, our playing with each others crap. But underage children is sick, it is revolting and you may say that it isnt a crime to think this way but i don't want anyone who even wants to do it in my town, country or planet.

Also i was going to post this long ago but i thought it would be inapropriate but if this thread is ok so is this. Somethingawful has this weekly thing where they go to forums and find the strange posts and make fun of them. Its normally pretty funny mocking the people i have listed above plus nerds and anything else. Infact i nominated civfanatics because i think that it would be funny as if they cut us up (particuly the demogames) but a few weeks ago that had this

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=3285

They pulled apart a pedofile website and it is disgusting, horbile stuff (no pictures dont worry just words) some of it comes very close to admiting they had done it, or some of them talk about acts they have already been tried for.

These people are sick and i think there entire websites should be torn down, i mean hackers are out their trying to attack microsoft why cant they destroy these websites.

These pedophile websites are routinely attacked by hackers.

I wasn't trying to imply anything, I was asking you at what point you identify someone as being capable of handling the responsibilities of sexual intercourse. "Puberty" seems to imply something around the 12-14 area.

WHEN BOTH ARE CONSENT I do not blame a 35-year-old woman who sleeps with a 15-year-old kid, I remember being that age and dreaming precisely that. So why should a 35-year-old man who sleeps with a 15-year-old girl be to blame ? And what about two homosexuals of 35 and 15 years of age repsectively?

So my question is : where do you set the limit, and why ?
("I know it when I see it" is not a valid answer )

To be honest 15 is the edge, For legality i would say 16, but really i know some 15 year olds (back when i was younger) who had sleeped with 30yo, and many 20yo. Most of these people are sluts and guys who like them young. Its really a matter of mental age, these girls were not raped or molestered. The law says 16 and i think this is the right age so then a jury can decided the finer points of 15yo and 17yo.

But 8yo is sick everybody knows you can make a argument for 15 or even 14 yo based on mental ability or choice but anything say 13 or younger in undefeanble. Although in New Zealand there was a proposed Bill that i agreed with but it was shot down. It legal age of consent 12 but only for partners 12-14, 13 year olds could consent with people 13-15, 14 year olds could up to 16, 15 year olds up to 17 and 16 yo could consent to anything other than prositution.

Just so you know I haven't read much of the thread and didn't click on the link out of protest.

Pedophiles are pedophiles no matter how you look at it. I don't mean a 17-year-old in love with a 30-year-old (gotta watch out for technicalities, on another forum I said rape should be punished by execution and some dork said "What about if a 30-year-old has consensual sex with a 17-year-old, that's rape and by your logic the 30-year-old should be executed!"), these sick old perverts asking for acceptance of their unnatural and evil desires?! Sick old men (whether they are gay or straight, they seem to always be men), they should be killed, not allowed to organize a choir!

I believe that you cannot condemn a person on their feelings.
Absolute rubbish. Where on earth do people get there actions from? It is because of a persons fellings that things get done. Separating the two is just foolish.

Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Matthew 15:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Normally I would check it out and then post my opinions of revulsion (after reading only a small sample of the site's content) whilst simultaneously issuing a call for right minded individuals to condemn such a site, but I'm at work, so I'll do it later.

I dated a 17-year-old when I was 18. I'm not a pedophile.

In my personal opinion a 60 year old with an 18 year old is a pedophile as well. According to the law he isn't, but it is sick if you're old enough to be her grandfather. That is more sick to me than a 15 year old with an 18 year old.

Absolute rubbish. Where on earth do people get there actions from? It is because of a persons fellings that things get done. Separating the two is just foolish.

Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Matthew 15:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Yes, but having the feelings of wanting to behead my neighbor with my naval officer's sword is a far cry from actually doing it; ditto for a pedophile that wants to take up with a child but doesn't act on his/her feelings. The desire for taking up with a child still labels him/her a pedophile (whereas my desire to execute my neighbor labels me an annoyed human being), but I think the official line is more correctly drawn at the action, not at the desire.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/Corsair01/nanoha_fate_transform.gif

Is it possible to be anti-paedophilia, yet pro-lolicon? I'll take that option.

When people think of pedophiles, they think of a fat 50-year-old man abusing and raping a 5-year-old kid.

However, technically a 19-year-old girl sleeping with a 16-year-old boy is also a pedophile.
No. Technically pedophilia is attration to prepubescents. A 16-year-old boy will, absent major developmental issues, be sexually mature.

I really think laws need to make some distinctions:

1) Adult - full rights to consent to sex
2) Consenting 'young adult' - able to consent to sex, maybe with some age restrictions
3) Non-conseting age 'young adult' - definately not with group 1, but probably most realistic is to put a one-year age restriction or something for legal purposes when dealing with groups 2&3
4) Child - generally prepubescent, though probably need to set an age

Generally would say 1= 18+yrs, 2=16-17yrs, 3=13-15 yrs, 4=12 and under. The exact ages are debatable. I would consider any relationship involving group 4 to be pedophilia punishable at murder standards or worse. While I wouldn't consider relationships between 1&3 pedophilia, it should certainly be illegal with fines, jail times, and no contact orders.

In other words, what already exists on the books?

To be honest 15 is the edge, For legality i would say 16, but really i know some 15 year olds (back when i was younger) who had sleeped with 30yo, and many 20yo. Most of these people are sluts and guys who like them young. Its really a matter of mental age, these girls were not raped or molestered. The law says 16 and i think this is the right age so then a jury can decided the finer points of 15yo and 17yo.

But 8yo is sick everybody knows you can make a argument for 15 or even 14 yo based on mental ability or choice but anything say 13 or younger in undefeanble. Although in New Zealand there was a proposed Bill that i agreed with but it was shot down. It legal age of consent 12 but only for partners 12-14, 13 year olds could consent with people 13-15, 14 year olds could up to 16, 15 year olds up to 17 and 16 yo could consent to anything other than prositution.

This would seem reasonable, but practically it is not workable. Anyone knows that a 14-year old simply does not have the life experience a 30 year old has, but if a 14-year old wants to have sex with a 30-year old, and it is legal where it is, you simply cannot prevent it, and neither do you have a right to. It is very common for girls to first have sex with men who are a lot older than them.
I would say that paedophilia is defined as the sexual relationship between someone who is of the age of concent, with someone who isnt of the age of concent, so in Spain for example it would not be pedophilic for a 40 year old to have concentual sex with a 14 year old. If there is no rape, there is no crime there.
It is common for people to have numerous problematic views about sex, but in reality it is not a different field of human action than anything else; and if there is no rape, and the people doing it are both at least in puberty, i do not see it as pedophilia since it is not. The legal age starts in some countries as low as 12, which i personally find impressive, though i have never heard of a 12 year old who has had sex, at least with concent. Definately if a 12,14,15 year old etc has sex with a 30 year old, or even a 20 year old, with concent, the experience may confuse the younger participant, but that would be due to the lack of perspective the younger participant would have; for example it is common for a problematic 20 something year old to have sex for the first time with a 16 year old, who cannot really understand the problems of the other person, since her (ussually it is a girl) peers are also immature, and she would have no real understanding of mature behaviour. However confusing such a relationship might be, it still is not illegal, and i would not like the idea of having laws that were targeted at theoretically limiting the possibility of a person being confused by sex, since that is very difficult to determine.
So the only people who in my view are definately pedophilics, are those who have sex with pre-puberty children, since a child in pre-puberty has no will to have sex, due to the fact that its body hasnt yet reached the stage of being sexually active. And the reason why this is illegal and should remain illegal, is due to very specific reasons: always a pre-puberty child will be seriously harmed by a sexual encounter, since it would be carrying that memory with it when it reaches puberty, and so it would have been robbed of an awakening of puberty it would have had it not been mistreated like that. The result would be various problems with its sexuality, and it would require therapy to solve them.

all this legal stuff aside we all know what a pedifile is it is a person who is old enough to have sexual feeling wanting to have sex with 4 year old. Let me make it clear you can have a 15 year old pedofile, My little sister was Raped by a 15 year old when she was 4. He was and is a pedofile we latter learnt he done it to his younger brother (about 8 at the time) and god knows what he has done since. He was let off, the cops in my town were looking into it but they left the area and the new cops had a look but later said he was innocent. My little sister couldnt have made that **** up. At the time i was angry but i didn't hurt him, i wanted justice to take its course and i had my freinds hurt him anyway. I got in trouble at school (suspened) for No reason i never hurt him or thrented him but they though i might to suspened me for a week. I didnt hate him and i didn't want him dead or even in jail he was a victim too he had some weird parents, who let him watch some shocking porn and probably other sick things, He needed help, serious psycological help but he didn't get anything he will do it again.

I have tried to track him down iv seen his mum in the city and i knew his school, but he dosen't go their anymore (be about 19 now) i have asked lots of people (i know allot of people from many areas) a few knew him. People like him go on these websites and talk about their made up child affairs, Some talk about real ones or wanting to, they try and justify themselves to each other by saying we are ignorant but we arn't Protecting your young from predetors isn't Ignortant or Intolerant, fighting or killing for your young isn't insane or wrong it is instinct and nature. And it is right.

If i ever saw someone doing somthing like this to my brothers or sisters or when i have kids, or anybody elses kids and i caught the barsted i don't think i would kill them but i would beat them till they bleed, cryed and hopefully would just go and kill there sick selves.

The age of consent should be seventeen.

In my personal opinion a 60 year old with an 18 year old is a pedophile as well. According to the law he isn't, but it is sick if you're old enough to be her grandfather. That is more sick to me than a 15 year old with an 18 year old.
I hear this alot and frankly I dont get it. Youre telling me that as a 40 year old, it would be immoral for me to have a sexual relationship with a 19 year old? On what basis? A 19 year old guy is often mentally almost indistinguishable from a 15 year old. Whats wrong with a 19 year old woman wanting to have a more mature relationship, and a 40 year old wanting to be involved with a 19 year old P.O.A.? Granted, Im not 60, but even if I was hobbling around hunched over with a cane and white hair, and the 19 year old wanted to be in a relationship with me, where does immorality or sickness enter the picture?:confused:

I agree ofcourse that anyone having sex with a pre-puberty child is a pedophile, all i am saying is that many people mix things up with the age issue when both people are in puberty or over. For example a 40 year old and a 14 year old is not peadophilia, and if it is done with concent there simply is nothing illegal there (if in that country it is legal for one to have sex at 14) or anyone else's business.
Also i agree that a real pedophile has serious issues; wanting to have sex with an infant, or pre-puberty child has to do with the need to be in control, and not only be in control but also have the other person be completely in the dark as to what is happening. This all may seem horrible, but like you said it points back to problematic childhood and parents, and in those circumstances who is to say that we too wouldnt have developed pedophiliac tendancies? We most probably would.

varwnos, a 14 year old is NOT a 19 year old. Just like a 40 year old isnt a 60 year old.

Certainly; i wasnt replying to your post BE, but to Nobody's post ;)
It is impossibly complicated to form a really logically based view of the effects any relationship would have, so i am of the view that it is not logical to claim that any 14 year old would not be "ready" for a sexual relationship, and some countries allow it at that age. Here the age of concent is 16, although i am not sure at what age kids now have sex; when i was 16 in higschool ten years ago it was still uncommon at least in my school for most people to have sex at 16, but now it probably is not as much.
I think that in any first sexual relationship there is a risk of some unrealistic views formed, depending on the partners. So ofcourse if a 14 yearold girl has sex with a 30 year old person who has issues, the possible outcome could be anything from mild, fleeting dissapointment, to suicide. However the relationship itself is not "sick" in any way.

Certainly; i wasnt replying to your post BE, but to Nobody's post ;)
Oh, ok Polyphemus;)

In my personal opinion a 60 year old with an 18 year old is a pedophile as well.
Your personal opinion is wrong. Pedophilia, for the nth time, is attraction to prepubescents.

Oh, ok Polyphemus;)

:lol:
Why are you not helping me? I am telling you that NOBODY has hurt me

If the age of conset is 14 than a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old would techincally qualify as rape would it not?

Why are you not helping me? I am telling you that NOBODY has hurt me
Well then count your blessings and stop yelling, you nut! :lol:

If the age of conset is 14 than a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old would techincally qualify as rape would it not?
Not necessarily.

Here, such used to be persecuted as "sexual intercourse with minor" if it was consensual, with punishments much lower than for rape. I'm not clear how it works under the new laws.

Well then count your blessings and stop yelling, you nut! :lol:

You say i am a nut; do you forget that my father is Poseidon! :crazyeye:

Haute couture threadjackers. :shakehead

Not necessarily.

Here, such used to be persecuted as "sexual intercourse with minor" if it was consensual, with punishments much lower than for rape. I'm not clear how it works under the new laws.

Right but a 1 year diffrence is puny and if consensual how could it possibly be prosecued?

Haute couture threadjackers. :shakehead
At least we bring threadjacking to a whole new level:lol:

Ok me and varwnos just had a video conference, and we agreed to cut it out.

Right but a 1 year diffrence is puny and if consensual how could it possibly be prosecued?
Usually because they younger person decided they didn't like it afterwards.

No doubt, the majority of cases never gets to the attention of the authorities.

This is just sick and ... wrong.

It is a little unsettling..and I now have a list of 100 songs I'll never be able to listen to again without feeling dirty...

It is a little unsettling..and I now have a list of 100 songs I'll never be able to listen to again without feeling dirty...

If you can listen to Amazing Grace and feel dirty, then you must be pretty sick anyway. :p

I'm surprised Baba Yetu isn't on the list, they've got everything from Johnny Cash to Madonna on there already.

Ugh, I just saw that Tears in Heaven is on that list too! What is with these people?

What kind of disgusting pervert gets off by watching kids go at it or going with kids themselves?

I think that everyone here would agree that these are worse than any other form of scum that SVU units deal with. Yes I watch that...

Ugh, I just saw that Tears in Heaven is on that list too! What is with these people?

And Ave Maria? Are they serious? Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred?!?! Heck the Theme from ET is in there. :crazyeye:


On a lighter note, I see Michael Jackson's Leave Me Alone has made the list. Irony runs deep this year, eh? :lol:

Heck the Theme from ET is in there. :crazyeye:

Well, ET looks a bit like a kid. Might not be that surprising they like him (it? she?).

No. Technically pedophilia is attration to prepubescents. A 16-year-old boy will, absent major developmental issues, be sexually mature.

Ok. Read technically as in legally.

Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Matthew 15:19: For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:


OMG JEREMIAH HAD SEX WITH A 9-YEAR-OLD WHEN HE WAS 17 ???????
;)

ET looks like a kid? :vomit:
Seriously, people are not doing themselves any favour by thinking that having strong emotions vs pedophiles is anything ""natural"". A pedophile was not born one, but became one, due to specific events in his childhood, along with the specific impression they made on him/her. It is rather cheap to be labeling a person as "scum", when that person may well have been raped by his/her parents as a pre-teen himself/herself.

I've never actually heard of a diagnosed pedophile that didn't suffer sexual abuse (my gf works with assault victims, so I hear about this quite a bit), which is the saddest thing ever. Especially because the problem seems to be self-perpetuating.

However, therapies only seem viable when the abuse victim is discovered and treated when they're young. Finding an AMAC (adult molested as a child) is heart breaking because therapy is SO needed, but SO ineffectual.

It's just interesting which songs they picked, a lot of them really have poor connections to pedophilia

If the age of conset is 14 than a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old would techincally qualify as rape would it not?

No, but it is still illegal

Quick Question: If two people under the age have consenual sex then is it a crime?

Depends where you are. In Canada, we have multiple ages of consent. I know that an adult can legally have sex with a 13 year old, but a 13 year old can have sex with another 13 year old, for example

I am telling you that NOBODY has hurt me

Lies lies lies, i tell you

This reminds me.

Pedophiles commonly 'mis name' body parts when dealing with children, so if the children ever confide in an adult, the adult won't understand.

For two years, a girl commonly cried that her dad "played with her toys" the night before, but the school teacher didn't understand. Later on, we found out that the dad had just mis-taught the girl the names of her body parts.

That made me sick.

In other words, what already exists on the books?

This was refering to post #69, but what I wrote is not on the books.

There are cases of an 18 yr-old having 'consentual' sex (though at that age they shouldn't be legally allowed to consent) with a 14 yr-old, later marrying with the parents consent, but still ending up getting registered as a sex offender, which eliminates LOTS of jobs. Wrong yes and should be illegal and punished, but this was taken to far. Especially when they get the same sentence as an actual pedophile.

On the other hand, there are cases of adults of many ages committing pedophilia with very young (under 6) children. However, the laws don't put them in jail for life most of the time. Some of these evil creatures have been convicted 3 or more times, but still get released after a few years back into society. I'd give them life without parole.

Speaking of "registered sex offender," I was surprised to hear earlier in the year that, at least where I am, being convicted for streaking (indecent exposure?) is apparently a sex offense now. Rediculous, no?

Ok. Read technically as in legally.But legally, there is generally no such thing as "pedophilia" (at least in the UK, as far as I know), rather you have crimes like statutory rape, or laws about pornography of people under a certain age.

The Last Conformist is quite right - pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescents. So if someone has opinions about people who have sex with prepubescent children, that opinion isn't changed by the fact that it's illegal in some places to have sex with a 17 year old. Maybe the law's wrong and the age of consent should be lower, or maybe pedophilia should be a specific crime with more severe sentences, but generally the age of consent isn't that relevant here. Acts of pedophilia are illegal because it's below the age of consent, but sex under the age of consent isn't necessarily pedophilia.

Speaking of "registered sex offender," I was surprised to hear earlier in the year that, at least where I am, being convicted for streaking (indecent exposure?) is apparently a sex offense now. Rediculous, no?You can become a sex offender for all sorts of things, which is a big problem. It's easy for Governments to pass new laws regarding making things harder for sex offenders (eg, letting the public know of their location), because the public associate sex offenders with pedophiles, and pedophiles are the Worst Thing Ever.

The distinction between inclination and action is quite a true and apt one, as is the distinction between paedophilia and ephebophilia.

I would not say that those with such inclination are forced into it or fully motivated by things that have happened to them. There would probably be a whole host and array of reasons, not least of all it simply developing like any other inclination of that type.

As long as no action is taken, then they do not cross the line. Action can include looking at pictures, given the manipulation and suffering of the kids involved in making them. There are many who like to tread close to the line, particularly sites based in Russia and Eastern Europe - all legal in the letter of the law, but not very nice.

Having said that, the site and subject are rather distasteful and cloying. As someone who works with chillblains, it is disturbing on many levels.
I remember some years ago getting the lowest possible score in a test by the Danish Pedophile Association, which was quite nice.

As to the actual songs, some on there are most pertubing and their link is quite tenuous. By such standard, anything can be associated with the idea - Jailbat by Skrewdriver due to its title; Mahler's 5th as it was used in Visconti's masterful rendering of 'Death in Venice'; or even Donovan's 'Hurdy Gurdy Man' because it was used effectively in a film about a kiddie fiddler.

Tsk. How strange. They can keep their boylove and all that. I'll just recline back on my throne and have my bevy of pageboys feed me morsels of venison until I decide what to do next. Mmm bop! :evil:

It has been a while since we have seen you. Welcome back.

If you can listen to Amazing Grace and feel dirty, then you must be pretty sick anyway. :p

I'm surprised Baba Yetu isn't on the list, they've got everything from Johnny Cash to Madonna on there already.So what songs would fit in the top 100 then ?
Remember the points that were used to decide which songs make the list.

Were sung by children Are aimed at a young audience Are about children or Pedophiliac related Are about Pedophiles Are sung by (alleged) Pedophiles Show children in their video

Well, just from that list and others that come to mind

Aaron Carter - Aaron's Party and indeed all the other Aaron Carter stuff on the list prior to 2003
John Lennon - Beautiful Boy
Jesse McCartney - Beautiful Soul
Oliver Twist - Consider Yourself and the other Oliver Twist numbers
Bomfunk MCs - Freestyler
The Hanson numbers
Kim Wilde - Kids in America
Limahl - Never Ending Story
Billy Gilman numbers
Donny Osmond - Puppy Love
Stand By Me (video clip made for 1986 film)
Suo Gan - Attributed to John Williams, but sung in Empire of the Sun (mouthed by Christian Bale and actually sung by another lad...Rainbow?)


Zombie, Ridiculous Thoughts and an REM song have topless lads in their film clips as well.


Zager & Evans?! That is the same 'In the Year 2525' that I know. Heavens above, those Dutch boylovers are really twisted!

I regard this thread start as the most offensive, unethical, stupid/naive, arrogant and outright idiotic of all the ones I've seen so far, and that done by a person that on regular basis are notifying people that they must stop acting unethical when they type a "foul" word. Pathetic in every way I can think of.
Rik, stating that your opening post is not advertisement is so silly that I have to question your intellectual status. Would you also say that a 10x2 meter big banner with "Colgate" written on it is not advertising??? Of course it is, and you know it!
You're also saying that you have an urge to protect and not-condemn the innocent. How nobel of you and who wouldn't agree that this is surely a fine cause. You are saying that no one should be punished for their thought and I agree 100%. People that have fantasies about being intimate with under aged kids should be free to have those for as much as they like methinks. Now, show me a case (one will suffice) where someone has been punished for that and not for the acting out of said fantasies. Mind you, spreading pics is indeed acting out, and if you think it isn't I suggest you talk to some kid whose naked, used body is spread over the www. Tell him/her that the person responsible wasn't doing something bad, but only excercising the right of free speach. Please notifie us of the response.
Martijn. org, yes I went there, is very proud to announce that MARTIJN Association is for the objective, scientifically verifiable truth and against political terror and discrimination., yet I found no scientific articles supporting the hypothesis that children that has been sexually victimized (yes, my definition) by adults should not take damage. You know why Rik, because there is no such articles to be found. I'm sure you can find loads of (pedophiles) descriptions on how happy kids are in the company of pedophiles, but that doesn't cut it in my textbook on scientific validity. OTOH, if someone is interested in articles that describes the consequenses for the abused children, then you have an ever growing body of research to go through. To put in question the mental scars that sexual child abuse causes is swimming in veeeery deep waters Rik and I strongly suggest you head for the beach.
Now you could repeat that you are only defending free speach/thought and, thus, the right for pedophiles to have their say. Well, they have that right already. The website is ther isn't it? Are people saying that they want to have sex with children (but not actually having it) convicted....? For what?
They are no more punished than any one saying he believes children should be chained and whipped (without actually doing it). I don't know the legal system in N-lands so correct me if I'm wrong. Then again, maybe you just want people in general (not the legal system) to stop harrassing pedophiles. You know what, I don't think people in general knows how to read minds and as long as they only have their fantasies no one will harrass them.
Finally, if you are so naive that you do not realize that you are indeed advertising something that has an enhancing effect on behaviours that are well proven to cause severe damage to children, then you are not fit to post.
I'd like to see this shameful thread closed/deleted immediately or I will lose any respect of the moderating team on CFC.

Dagh:
1 - I never stated that the opening post is or isn't advertising. I answered El_Machinae's question if the site in question has advertising on it. Don't put words in my mouth.
2 - Commenting on any members' intellectual status is a member-specific post and a flame or troll and thus against forum rules.
3 - If you want a thread closed; report it (or PM the moderators in who'se section the thread is located), so the responsible moderator(s) can judge if it should be closed or not. Posting in it that is has to be closed will not help.
4 - Apparently some members cannot distinguish between a moderator action and a member's action.
5 - I will do no more effort to search anything further on the topic of Pedophilia as it disgusts me. So if you are expecting proof or refutations from me; you will be disappointed. There will be none.

Most of your observations and conclusions (especially about me) are incorrect.

I was talking to a counsellor at our sexual assault centre, and she was saying that the likelyhood of a pedophile NOT acting on their urges is too low to be reasonably expected. I'm not saying that they should all be shot, or anything, but expecting a pedophile to self-regulate might be futile - they might need help keeping themselves out of tempting situations. I also was not satisfied with her answer, and I'm asking her to show her point with studies. It's Christmas, though, so she might not get back to me for awhile.

Lies lies lies, i tell you

just to be clear ;) I meant it as a quote from the Odyssey, where the cyclops Polyphemus is told by Odysseus that Odysseus's name is "Nobody". This was a trick by Odysseus so that later on Polyphemus would reply to his fellow cyclopes (cyclopses) who asked him who hurt him "Nobody hurt me", and so they wouldnt come to his help immediately :)

I regard this thread start as the most offensive, unethical, stupid/naive, arrogant and outright idiotic of all the ones I've seen so far, and that done by a person that on regular basis are notifying people that they must stop acting unethical when they type a "foul" word. Pathetic in every way I can think of.
Rik, stating that your opening post is not advertisement is so silly that I have to question your intellectual status. Would you also say that a 10x2 meter big banner with "Colgate" written on it is not advertising??? Of course it is, and you know it!
You're also saying that you How nobel of you and who wouldn't agree that this is surely a fine cause. You are saying that no one should be punished for their thought and I agree 100%. People that have fantasies about being intimate with under aged kids should be free to have those for as much as they like methinks. Now, show me a case (one will suffice) where someone has been punished for that and not for the acting out of said fantasies. Mind you, spreading pics is indeed acting out, and if you think it isn't I suggest you talk to some kid whose naked, used body is spread over the www. Tell him/her that the person responsible wasn't doing something bad, but only excercising the right of free speach. Please notifie us of the response.
Martijn. org, yes I went there, is very proud to announce that , yet I found no scientific articles supporting the hypothesis that children that has been sexually victimized (yes, my definition) by adults should not take damage. You know why Rik, because there is no such articles to be found. I'm sure you can find loads of (pedophiles) descriptions on how happy kids are in the company of pedophiles, but that doesn't cut it in my textbook on scientific validity. OTOH, if someone is interested in articles that describes the consequenses for the abused children, then you have an ever growing body of research to go through. To put in question the mental scars that sexual child abuse causes is swimming in veeeery deep waters Rik and I strongly suggest you head for the beach.
Now you could repeat that you are only defending free speach/thought and, thus, the right for pedophiles to have their say. Well, they have that right already. The website is ther isn't it? Are people saying that they want to have sex with children (but not actually having it) convicted....? For what?
They are no more punished than any one saying he believes children should be chained and whipped (without actually doing it). I don't know the legal system in N-lands so correct me if I'm wrong. Then again, maybe you just want people in general (not the legal system) to stop harrassing pedophiles. You know what, I don't think people in general knows how to read minds and as long as they only have their fantasies no one will harrass them.
Finally, if you are so naive that you do not realize that you are indeed advertising something that has an enhancing effect on behaviours that are well proven to cause severe damage to children, then you are not fit to post.
I'd like to see this shameful thread closed/deleted immediately or I will lose any respect of the moderating team on CFC.
I absolutely agree with you. We recently had a thread about sexual fetishes and that thread was closed. I believe that this thread should have a similar disclaimer as that one had. Warning, this is not for young posters. I really fail to see how this thread is stil open while that one is closed, either close this one or reopen the other thread.

It is proven that Paedophilia ruins childrens lives, so we really should not be talking about this subject on a "family" site. Well it seems that the definition of family has changed so this seems to include family now I guess.

1 - I never stated that the opening post is or isn't advertising. I answered El_Machinae's question if the site in question has advertising on it. Don't put words in my mouth. I realize that was clumsy/stupid from my side and that I misunderstood that part. You did not say that your post wasn't advertising pedophilia. You did say that pedophilia is not bad which is bad enough. Of course it's bad, bad for the pedophile and bad for his/her possible victims. Why should you have a treatment protocol for it if it wasn't bad? Question remains; do you realize that the function, albeit not intent, of the post is advertising?

2 - Commenting on any members' intellectual status is a member-specific post and a flame or troll and thus against forum rules.
In my world saying that someone is stupid is a lesser offense than the action done by the stupid person. I do regret that I wasn't explict enough about the critic meaning that specific post and not you as a person. Criticising someone for personal traits are destructive and doesn't do any good, sorry.

3 - If you want a thread closed; report it (or PM the moderators in who'se section the thread is located), so the responsible moderator(s) can judge if it should be closed or not. Posting in it that is has to be closed will not help. thanks for the tip. I just did.

4 - Apparently some members cannot distinguish between a moderator action and a member's action.
How cool of you not to mention me and avoiding creating a troll. Apparently some members don't fully understand this difference and to be honest, said members believe that such lack of understanding is dwarfed by the lack of understanding of how a post like yours are way out of line.

5 - I will do no more effort to search anything further on the topic of Pedophilia as it disgusts me. So if you are expecting proof or refutations from me; you will be disappointed. There will be none.

Most of your observations and conclusions (especially about me) are incorrect. I'm glad you're disgusted by people that tries to blurr out the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to child abuse, but that was not the impression I got when reading the post, hence my rather aggressive reply. Someone first saying pedophilia isn't bad, then saying it disgusts him can be confusing. Rik, I really haven't drawn any conclusions about you as a person. As I said, it was a mistake to make the impression that you advocate pedophilia/pedosex and I acknowlege that. I do stand by my view on the post though. It was stupid, unethical and not fit in this fora. I know you're a brainy guy and not intellectually disable, but the decision to pick that subject, describing the Martijn association mission and, on top of that, putting out a link to them was a gross mistake in my opinion.

If your intention wasn't to "advertise" that site and the opinions held there, I'm truly and honestly sorry for suggesting such a thing, believe me.

I also make mistakes for sure, and I'm not thinking about tricking the autocensor by siwtchnig the odrer of lerttes, but most times some kind soul informes me about them and every now and then I can put things right again. I suggest you do the same thing in this case and urge Eyrei to execute my request for this thread to be closed.
Hopefully this will not result in any hard feelings from your side Rik, but I will be Royally Banned before I scroll past anything that looks like advertising abuse/bigottery/bullying without barking loudly up that tree.

Side Note: Those of you that has actually responded to the ridicoulus top list question should re-think. How easy would it be to make you accept ill-behaviour against fellow humans of any kind if it only was presented in a nice/funny package?

Just for kicks I red some here is something I thought nothing more then being perverted in proper english
On 13 July an item about OK magazine of MARTIJN Association could be watched in Editie (Edition) NL, a programma by RTL 4, a Dutch commercial TV station. The editors of the programme clearly proved to be surprised that the photographs of nude little boys in the magazine are legal. During the item two reactions from MARTIJN Association were read, which were to be seen on the screen too. These are the reactions:

"MARTIJN did not make the photos in the magazine. Photographers give us permission to use them for free. Worldwide, a lot of photographers are active to record the beauty of children with permission from the children and the parents. People often find things morally objectionable, but they should just ask themselves what is bad about a naked child. It's quite allright to appreciate beauty."

"MARTIJN is very necessary to break up the witch hunt against pedos. MARTIJN happens to be one of the few organizations in the world which makes a stand actively for children's rights, also sexually. Society is afraid for sexuality and a lot of people are frustrated about sexuality."

The Dutch sexologist Lex van Naerssen managed to report in the item that the photos which are in OK magazine, are legal. ]

These people are wrong, immoral, and a stain on society, and I think that even posting this site was in bad taste and the thread should be removed


I absolutely agree with you. We recently had a thread about sexual fetishes and that thread was closed. I believe that this thread should have a similar disclaimer as that one had. Warning, this is not for young posters. I really fail to see how this thread is stil open while that one is closed, either close this one or reopen the other thread.

It is proven that Paedophilia ruins childrens lives, so we really should not be talking about this subject on a "family" site. Well it seems that the definition of family has changed so this seems to include family now I guess.

I agree it ruins peoples lives, (I have a friend who was molested by her father when she was 3) and as I just said it is in very poor taste to put this here and if it waasnt posted by a mod It would have been removed 2 posts in I am sure.

Just for clarification, I have never said that having fantasies about abusing children should be illegal, and that goes for thinking afro-americans are all drug dealers, gays are disgusting, jews are greedy and even Santa Claus are a fake. If pedophilia was ONLY about thought, then I'd say it's OK. The scientific evidence (and common sense) strongly suggests that is not the case and because thinking about abuse (and nurishing those thoughts in discussion groups/magazines/web-sites) are so closely linked to actually committing abuse it is appropriate to target both pedophilia and pedosex.
It is naive to believe that pedopihiliacs are only interested in children as such. We cannot assume that these adults seeks childrens company in order to play with dolls and talk about the latest episode of Teletubbies. They do that too, but that is nothing but means to an end. The ultimate goal is, with very few exceptions, to extort obediance/helplessness in order to make the adult feel strong and in control. If the child acts obediante and weak, the better. The adult then can act as if he/she was comforting the child. That leads to thoughts on being "good" to the kid.
Stating that those photos was done with the permission from the childs is pure rubbish. Do we really believe a kid can grasp the context in which this happens?

Just for clarification, I have never said that having fantasies about abusing children should be illegal, and that goes for thinking afro-americans are all drug dealers, gays are disgusting, jews are greedy and even Santa Claus are a fake. If pedophilia was ONLY about thought, then I'd say it's OK. The scientific evidence (and common sense) strongly suggests that is not the case and because thinking about abuse (and nurishing those thoughts in discussion groups/magazines/web-sites) are so closely linked to actually committing abuse it is appropriate to target both pedophilia and pedosex.
It is naive to believe that pedopihiliacs are only interested in children as such. We cannot assume that these adults seeks childrens company in order to play with dolls and talk about the latest episode of Teletubbies. They do that too, but that is nothing but means to an end. The ultimate goal is, with very few exceptions, to extort obediance/helplessness in order to make the adult feel strong and in control. If the child acts obediante and weak, the better. The adult then can act as if he/she was comforting the child. That leads to thoughts on being "good" to the kid.
Stating that those photos was done with the permission from the childs is pure rubbish. Do we really believe a kid can grasp the context in which this happens?
This is what every one is saying. Yet this thread still exists even though it is discussing a subject matter that is unapropriate to say the least. The fact that you find it necessary to continue disscusion makes you just as bad as the people who decided that they liked childeren. If not worse, because you are makeing a consius decision to continue the discussion while , as i admit, some of the pedifiles dont have much of a choice.

I am also confused as to why you start by saying that the thoughts arnt bad, but continue to say that they are wrong. You should stick with one oppinion and use it.

I am disgusted by you and your apparent fascination with this subject and I choose to leave after only 2 posts saying that this thread continues only because A moderator started it.

SO I UNOFFICIALY CLOSE THIS THREAD

I'm sure we all agree that sex with a child is a big nono.

So can we now get back to the question that was stated in post #1 ??

This list is a way to draw attention. It has drawn media attention and some listed artists are going to court to get their names and songs off the list. Other artists say that their songs can be listed by anyone for anything; even if they don't support the goals for the list.

Should an artist be able to get his/her songs removed from a top 100 nominee list if (s)he doesn't want to be on it ?

I think they should be able to put a cease/desist and sue for defamation.

Closed. This thread has definately gone on long enough. Eyrei.