Paedophilia is a sexual attraction. It is not an action. It is legal.

I am not supporting sex offenders, I am supporting people who are attracted to young children.

You can't separate someone or jail them merely because of who they're attracted to. In the case of paedophiles, such a proposal would be absolutely impossible to enact, because of the huge number of paedophiles in the UK.

If you genuinely are supporting classifying someone as a dangerous offender *when they haven't even committed an offence*, please confirm this. If you are supporting criminalising people for unpopular thought, you need to look at who *you* are, because a lot of people find homosexuality to be utterly distasteful, regardless of what they say publicly.

I replied to you in detail, here -  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376841.html?c=on#c177609

You are most obviously brain dead or a nonse in the making, yourself, if you support the thought that thinking about having sex with children is o.k.

Every action starts with a thought you complete moron.

Perhaps when one of these vile creatures touches your life and molests a child in your extended family, you might grow a brain and think straight... other than that... maybe you would prefer to be the one molesting children... may you rot in hell mate.

I dare you to walk around in public stating you support of the thought of paedophilia. See how the general public feel about paedophiles.

I know the problem is prevalent in the U.K. because of idiots like yourself who support violent sexual assault on children and paedophiles on the benches of the judiciary and within Parliament.

I suspect you are a nonse waiting to happen and I don't debate the molesting of children nor converse with paedophiles... hell is a long time a blazing mate ... take a long look in the mirror...

I am, yet again, accused of supporting child molestation. Do you feel that it hinders your argument to acknowledge the fact that I actually do NOT support such activity?

'BLueRibbon ', you don't seem to get it. Indymedia is meant as a place where genuine political activists can discuss how to make this a better world - one where children are free to develop naturally and are safe from deeply disturbed people who would use children for the self-gratification of sick and twisted urges.

...indicative of our current society's paedohysteria.

To start with, you and others have spouted a lot of hot air about homosexuality, using it as some kind of battering ram against this man's arguments. Now, as a (fellow) queer, let me address some of these concerns.

1. NAMBLA is a pedophile and ephebophile rights organisation. It is also, by its very nature, a gay rights organisation.

2. Trying to suggest that their early pro - teenboy - sex stance was rejected by the early Gay Community is nothing short of sickeningly cynical historical revisionism or pure youthful ignorance. In fact, the early impetus was on sexual rights for *all*, regardless of age and coupling.

3. However, to say that the present day division between these two streams of advocacy does not exist, would also be wrong. This is in part due to ILGA going back on its principles (regardless of their correctness).

4. Our paedophile friend is not confusing homosexuality with paedophilia. He is stating that at least in terms of one's right to think and feel, they should be considered equal in the law and society as a whole.

However, he is drawing a link between them. Although both homosexuality and heterosexuality by their very nature, are attractions to two extremes of secondary sexual character (and therefore more mature, less androgynous aesthetics), this does not exclude the possibility of there being a comparatively high percentage of homosexuals and bisexuals among the paedophilic population.

Since the bodies of prepubescent children are more androgynous, a person who prefers such an aesthetic is very likely not to discriminate very much between M & F. Therefore, their orientation tends to be much more "centered", i.e. bisexual, leaving emotional, sociological and genital differences to decide the chosen orientation of the paedophile. In this way, homosexuality *is* much more common in pedophiles. For example, the online communities of homosexual paedophiles are known to be at least twice as developed as those for heterosexuals, although this may be in part due to the greater societal acceptance of minor - attracted heterosexuals, and continuation of the queer theme.

Now, on to the more recent arguments:

A paedophile such as BLue comes on here, advocates nothing but responsible behaviour, and you then unleash such idiocy on this board. What a shame that you were one of the first to see his argument. Now, I shall address your reply:

"You are most obviously brain dead or a nonse in the making, yourself, if you support the thought that thinking about having sex with children is o.k".

This is a total non-sequitur. I also think that there is nothing unethical in simply *thinking* of touching (or as BLue puts it, being touched) by a young boy. What is better? Acting something illegal out in your imagination or the real world?

"Every action starts with a thought you complete moron".

In this case, the rationalisation of having sex with boys. I see no such rationalisation on BLue's part. Oh, and let's call you a moron for good measure, shall we?

"Perhaps when one of these vile creatures touches your life and molests a child in your extended family, you might grow a brain and think straight... other than that... maybe you would prefer to be the one molesting children... may you rot in hell mate".

Again, this is a non sequitur. If this did happen, he would have nothing to feel ashamed about, as he does not support the rationalisation of molesting little boys.

"I dare you to walk around in public stating you support of the thought of paedophilia. See how the general public feel about paedophiles".

Could this possibly be an implied argument from physical threat? "You're wrong, because we'll bomb your ass if you get all uppity"?

"I know the problem is prevalent in the U.K. because of idiots like yourself who support violent sexual assault on children and paedophiles on the benches of the judiciary and within Parliament".

What? As well as being wayward and unsupported, this is plainly libellous! Let's have a look at some of your earlier quotes:

"Paedophilia is the most egregious act of all humanity towards any child".

It is actually an attraction. Look in any dictionary, diagnostic manual, or simply think of the word's etymology. If you are capable of that.

"I am proud to say I am a fag-hag and I love my gay mates and there is nothing paedophilic in their nature, by any means or of any sorts. Homosexuals are not paedophiles... they have absolutely nothing in common".

He was not saying this when he pointed out a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. Get your facts right.

"I have a very clear problem with apologist jackasses like the author of said disappeared article who supported the right to freely express adult sexual attraction towards children".

How can one not express the trait of attraction? It is not a chioce, you know. And you offer no solution for this, but authoritarianism:

"Said people who support paedophilia need to be sectioned under the mental health act; in my mind - this train of thought is most sickening and definitely depraved".

The MI industry is not there to pander to what you subjectively see as "sickening" or "depraved", especially if it is not acted upon. Sorry, but this is plainly retarded, and would lead to total silence, total shame, total internalisation and total danger.

"And lets be clear on this matter - crystal clear: what I despise is the paedophile who hides behind the gay banner, purporting to be homosexual and instead being the gravest threat to all humanities children - a paedophile".

He's a homosexual paedophile. Me and you are homosexual teliophiles. Deal with it.

"Homosexuals are not a threat to society - they are a valuable part of it as love is love, no matter what the gender. Sexually preying on the weakest and smallest individuals in society is the most violent act against all of society as the ramifications and scarring of a sexual assault against a child last a lifetime and reach deep into the family unit, creating chaos and mahem, so much so, it inevitably spills over into the community and into society, in general".

So with gays, it's all about love, and with paedphiles, it's all about jumping into sexual activities and "preying". You are comparing teliophiles with psychopaths. I've got a surprise for you. Some people would look at a child in the same way that you and I look at an adult of the same sex. I see no better word to describe these people than "paedophile". And if you wish to use such a word to describe Marc Dutroux et al, then fine. But you most certainly will not be addressing BLue and millions of other people who have his non-psychopathic attractions.

"All paedophiles should be classed as dangerous offenders - full stop. A dangerous offender is defined by two factors:1. the severity of his crime 2. the likelihood to recommit the offence.

Why aren't paedophiles classed as the dangerous offenders that all of society acknowledges them to be?"

Because they have not offended in the first place! You utter moron!

"HOW MANY CHILDREN SUFFERED EXTREME SEXUAL VIOLENCE FOR HIS SEXUAL GRATIFICATION?"

Typical of your creed to turn on the caps, there. You might like to consider that sexuality is not intrinsically linked to violence, and that such an assumption shows how deranged our current morality is.

Kind Regards,

R. P.

What about some sympathy some pedophiles have mental health issues. Also what about child on child sex abuse I suppose you'd want to lock children up as well!

You need to see a shrink!

To even entertain the idea that sexual attraction to children isn't a worrying sign of sickness is enough to convince me you may be even more dangerous than you believe yourself to be.

Go get help and stop trying to normalise twisted perversion!

Thanks for that eloquent defence, RP.

I haven't said that it's okay to be "touched by boys" though, unless you mean "touched by" in an emotional sense (eg "that speech was touching")

BLue, my comment was about thoughts, as opposed to actions.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with simply *thinking* about being touched by a small boy. And of course, if a small boy were to touch you without warning, the last thing you should be doing is telling him that he will suffer a lifetime of guilt and self-victimisation.

The gay community seems to be selling out to the romanticist, soccer-mom rubbish that they once staunchly opposed, in an attempt to distance itself from "perverts".

Kind Regards,

R.P.

The article posted yesterday was clearly an attempt to start a debate on Indymedia. I thought of replying to Blueribbon's original article but thought better of it. Sweet Charity has only expressed what the vast majority think about paedophiles but even replying was an error. This is not the first time clever paedophiles have sort to appear reasonable and reasoning in progressive circles. However, a characteristic of all paedophiles is to be convincing and clever liars, we have a demonstration of it above in RP's defence of Blueribbon - what makes me think he knows Blueribbon?

I have a proposal

1. Any post seeking to discuss paedophilia is removed automatically from Indymedia.

2. No platform for paedophiles - means no debate or discussion with the apologists, however big and clever words they wish to use to justify theirs or others behaviour, or their cunning ability to appear reasonable.

This is not the about the "rights" of adults to have sexual relationships or feelings towards children, but the right of all children to be free and safe from adult, normally male, sexual predators.

No platform means no platform!

Fred,

First of all, why do you consider that paedophiles can't be reasoning or reasonable? Paedophilia does not affect cognitive ability.

Secondly, why do you talk about child protection when I'm talking about thought? Child safety is not threatened by fantasy and it never will be.

STOP referring to paedophilia as a behaviour, because you are very, very wrong.

Fred... I know what you mean when you say these monstrous creatures do not deserve a platform and... unfortunately this topic warrants serious public debate let alone discussion on Indy.

Yes, these two *ssholes know each other and managed to slip in some very disturbing, perverted comments and... silence is what the paedophile relies on.

As a nation, we know what the problem is and as adults, we must force the judiciary and parliament to mend its evil ways of setting these creatures loose to recommit their most depraved crimes.

We have to start protecting the children.

By the way, is Gordon Brown merely a gay man hiding in the closet or does he have much, much more to hide?

Yes I am the bitch who is outing Gordon. He is a disgrace as a human being with his "I don't do war, I just fund it" attitude, his complicity in infanticide, genocide, theft, rape and torture, his theft of £50,000,000,000.00 from the pensioners fund - selling out all the grannies and veterans, and his pathetic attempt to fool the people that he is a "family man".

XXX

"The article posted yesterday was clearly an attempt to start a debate on Indymedia"

Oh, the AUDACITY!

"I thought of replying to Blueribbon's original article but thought better of it".

I agree.

"Sweet Charity has only expressed what the vast majority think about paedophiles but even replying was an error".

I'd wager that the majority isn't that vast. Still, that's totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that Charity's argument is immensely ignorant and shows a complete disregard for logical and scientific reasoning.

"This is not the first time clever paedophiles have sort to appear reasonable and reasoning in progressive circles. However, a characteristic of all paedophiles is to be convincing and clever liars, we have a demonstration of it above in RP's defence of Blueribbon - what makes me think he knows Blueribbon?"

Could you please not accuse me of mindfucking. Address my arguments, as they are right before you. The espouser is not. Such is life on the web.

And I have to say that this kind of behaviour is extremely bad form, and in no way "progressive". The reactions on this board have been... well, reactionary.

The reason that I have replied with a more accurate grasp of BLueribbon's beliefs is because I've decided to read his website before commenting, and happen to agree with most of what is written there. And I can tell you that his participation here is by no means a one-off game of advocate. This author completely denounces child abuse, and just wants a better life for himself. And IMO, ending a modern witchhunt is as "progressive" as you can get!

"I have a proposal

1. Any post seeking to discuss paedophilia is removed automatically from Indymedia.

2. No platform for paedophiles - means no debate or discussion with the apologists, however big and clever words they wish to use to justify theirs or others behaviour, or their cunning ability to appear reasonable.

[...]

No platform means no platform!"

No platform means thinly veiled fascism.

"This is not the about the "rights" of adults to have sexual relationships or feelings towards children, but the right of all children to be free and safe from adult, normally male, sexual predators".

To the former right: no one is advocating that. To the latter right: it already exists, although society condemns those who are open about it. I would have thought that UKI was the last place that people would be openly advocating the fascistic removal of a right to think and feel.

all paedophiles must be classed as dangerous offenders and permanently isolated and segregated from society.

this matter must be discussed within the public forum and resolved, not swept under the rug.

i will not debate the molesting of children nor negotiate with paedophiles.

Men are guilty of most violence - it's men who rape women (and other men, and children, and animals), it's men who are (mostly) guilty of domestic violence, etc.

Men are obviously deranged - we should therefore ban these disgusting creatures once and for all. Lock them up in psychiatric hospitals or something.

Should former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright be considered a paedophile? She once infamously said that the death of half a million children was a `price worth paying`. The deaths of more people than were killed in Hiroshima – that’s got the worst form of child abuse possible.

 http://www.savewarchildren.org/DUWeaponImpact.html