• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is pedophilia a sexuality?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If there's grass on the field...

I personally find getting off on violence, a daily occurrence of many, more sick than doing so on young bodies (without sex being involved). At least you can argue there's beauty --albeit in the ancient Greek sense of the word-- in those bodies. But violence? it only speaks from our primitive traits. Violence makes you tribal. Tribalism makes you stupid. Healthy appreciation of nubile beauty doesn't. So, I rather ban violence from the Internet than nude bodies. But I'm a visionary so I'll understand if you won't join my pre-teen sex cult.

What? FBI? Fuck off I'm reading Nabokov.
 
Thinking about it, the proposed law in this context could be simplified to just say anyone supporting the abuse of a child through their activities is guilty of this crime. The prosecution would be tasked with proving that whatever they did met this criteria, whether it be downloading child porn, participating in and supporting an online group whose central purpose was the production and sharing of this material, etc.
 
KHarvey16 said:
So now in every case the creator has him or herself distributed this to the entire internet? The list of things you need to prove is getting longer and more difficult you know.

I also think it is recklessly naive to think for a second that someone who molests a child does it conditionally based upon whether or not others want to see it.

Except neither of those things are the case or have any relation to the point or were even suggested. As I thought; you have no argument there.

KHarvey16 said:
My proposal's greatest benefit is to a society that prides itself on justice and liberty. My proposal makes sure the people that are punished actually deserve it.

Except that it does the exact opposite. I bet all those consumers of child porn would sure appreciate it though!

KHarvey16 said:
Anyone who contributes to the production of child porn or otherwise supports the abuse of a child should be punished. If you want this to include everyone who downloads porn, you have to justify that position. You have yet to do so.

It's already been done, not too mention it's common sense; someone who enjoys child porn probably isn't going to be 'against' it too honestly, now are they?

Besides, you want the law changed. And for that, you have to prove that you simply aren't just benefitting people who download child porn. It's pretty obvious that you can't do it.


In any case, if you want to continue your crusade for child porn downloaders rights, it'll have to be in the morning. night now!
 
Vyer said:
Except neither of those things are the case or have any relation to the point or were even suggested. As I thought; you have no argument there.

Huh? You don't even understand what you're saying, never mind what I'm saying.

Vyer said:
Except that it does the exact opposite. I bet all those consumers of child porn would sure appreciate it though!

Your appeals to emotion are predictable and pathetic. It'd be nice if you stopped. You offer no substantive argument here.

Vyer said:
It's already been done, not too mention it's common sense; someone who enjoys child porn probably isn't going to be 'against' it too honestly, now are they?

Besides, you want the law changed. And for that, you have to prove that you simply aren't just benefitting people who download child porn. It's pretty obvious that you can't do it.


In any case, if you want to continue your crusade for child porn downloaders rights, it'll have to be in the morning. night now!

The law allows for anyone who possess the porn to be prosecuted and convicted. Not people who enjoy it. Not people who download it intentionally. Not people who contribute to the abuse of a child. None of that matters. If they have it they go to jail.

How is this hard for you to grasp? You haven't understood a single thing I've said this entire discussion. That is impressive.
 
Sklorenz said:
As I said before, CP may "speak of beauty" but it's obviously a kink -- a kink abhorred by many for obvious reasons... illegal in most countries for obvious reasons. The age at which you determine this consent is up for grabs, but man, both of these things (violence, CP) are generally damaging to those who experience it. I don't think the separation is as clear as you make it.
Pornography involves sex or a clear, clear suggestion of it. Child beauty contest would be raided if this wasn't the case. I explicitly stated no sex involved.
 
CrankyJay said:
Unless the person posting images/videos are complete idiots, most CP you find on the internet is part of an "underground" network in which you have to gain access.

Vyer said:
I see hundreds of infected computers a month. The idea that 'oops I clicked on this ad' or "i got that damn Security Center virus' will suddenly load your computer with kiddie porn is simply false. I can agree that some sort of unintentional content and being jailed for it would be an issue, but if this is your position you have to have some numbers to show how this gross injustice is happening at such an alarming rate. Because your position, by default, will greatly benefit one specific group of people in addition to this.

Most CP is actually downloaded through file-sharing networks in plain sight. I don't know what the major networks are now (bittorrent is a little less pedophile friendly) but during the early 2000's it was Limewire, Kazaa, and similar gnutella networks.

As for downloading by accident, that's a fairly simple thing to do if you are using said networks to download any type of porn. Since files were being directly transferred from another users computer, the file could be labeled as one thing but be something else entirely, with no means of file verifications. That, in and of itself, helped in hiding CP files in plain sight. But even putting false labeling aside, doing a video search on limewire for "teen sex" could lead to downloading CP ("teen" in the porn industry is 18/19 (20+ if they can get away with it) but in the real world it's 13-19).

As far as monitoring CP goes, it's actually a lot simpler than people realize. Its a simple matter of searching for the videos/pictures on any given file sharing network, downloading them, and tracking the IP's of the users seeding the file. In the days of Limewire, you could then just type in a persons IP and you could see all the files they are sharing so the file sharing programs themselves did most of the work. All law enforcement has to do is link the IP to and ISP, call them up, and get an address (I'm sure there's a bit more than that, but that's the basic rundown).

Finally, why share it on the internet? Most don't. You do have the "professional" child pornographers that are apart of the human trafficking network but that's less prevalent in highly developed nations. For most, the reason the film it in the first place is usually for a private porn collection (no different than anyone else making a sex tape). Putting those videos/pictures on the internet would be counter-productive to their interest (it being illegal and all) so it typically doesn't happen. When it does, it's usually someone trying to show off their "accomplishments" and unless they're very computer/internet savy, they're the ones that typically get caught. These people are few and far between which is why you don't see many molesters being caught.

To the law itself, the supply and demand argument was originally brought up as a reason to outlaw possession because people used to actually pay for it. The idea being that those who paid for CP were, essentially, paying someone to molest a child. Simple possession was originally not illegal. Originally, possession required there to be an intent to sell/distribute or for there to be a proof of purchase (1987). That was jerry-rigged in three years later (1990) and like with most amendments to child porn laws, done without any empirical evidence (The idea being, those who watched CP were inevitably going to become molestors. To this day, they are still trying to prove this to no avail). This was all back when pedophiles got their CP through the mail and for the most part, it typically wasn't worth the effort to go after the "simple possession" people.

Enter the internet. Even during the internet boom of the mid 90's, simple possession of CP was still not something that law enforcement pursued very heavily. The primary focus was still the molesters themselves but sometime in the late 90's/early 00's, some third-party company released a report that the CP internet "industry" was raking in more money than even the internet adult porn industry ($3B at the time if I recall correctly) and then the shit hit the fan. Since then till today, you've been having amendment after amendment added to the child porn laws and a huge crackdown on possession of CP all because some random internet company (an aggregate review company no less - TopTenReviews) estimated that the CP industry was huge. Seeing as most CP is downloaded through file sharing services though, that number seems highly improbably and based purely on the fact that during the .com boom, thousands of "entrepreneurs" were making CP related websites.

The only reason law enforcement is so heavily going after people in possession of CP is so that they can maintain their high budgets and get good PR. People being thrown in jail for non-violent crimes has been on a steady increase as violent crimes and property crimes have been going down across the board. The same applies to drug possession and statutory rape, all on the rise. Prison sentences are also becoming much longer for these crimes as well as the probationary period afterward. The prison system is a business and they need inmates to run and politicians are always in need of a criminal group they can get "tough on" and "protect your family and children" from.

So there's my disorganized mind farts. Make of it what you will.
 
Eh, it there's mutual love and understanding on both sides, I don't see why not.

Of course, the majority of cases are abuses and all that junk, but the fundamental fear is the thought that the child is being abused, and that the child cannot comprehend what is going on. If that can be proved to not be the truth, then sooner or later opposition to pedophilia will just be off the squick factor... which will be overcome given enough time.

I mean, there's nothing really wrong with cases like this, but the issue with pedophilia is the fact that abuse is the main form in which people know pedophilia, and THAT should rightfully be targeted. But that holds true for all forms of sexuality.

Edit: Oh, and by the way the same holds true for incest IMO.
 
CrushDance said:
Eh, I thought it was genetic.

I think it is very odd to think such is genetic, like being coded to be attracted premature male/female. To me it is obviously grown from insecurity. misconceptions, social interaction. You notice how people can be sexually attracted to almost anything once they get their ideas started by relating it to sexual stimulation.
 
Aside from the legal&moral debait, is there something scientifically proven on the matter?
I mean, what's the point of building oneself moral around the subject, starting with "Well, i think it's some kind of genetic etc etc.. make sense..bla bla".
You don't go arguing like that about atoms, do you? So what does the data says?
Probably i didn't pay attention enough, but i thought i saw, like, 1 link in the whole thread, to wikipedia, and that's it.
 
UrbanRats said:
Aside from the legal&moral debait, is there something scientifically proven on the matter?
I mean, what's the point of building oneself moral around the subject, starting with "Well, i think it's some kind of genetic etc etc.. make sense..bla bla".
You don't go arguing like that about atoms, do you? So what does the data says?
Probably i didn't pay attention enough, but i thought i saw, like, 1 link in the whole thread, to wikipedia, and that's it.

Also, OP should also clarify if he means Pedophilia in it's strictest definition, or if he is lumping in Hebephilia and Ephebophilia into the mix.
 
Ogrekiller said:
Well there is one objection to such young mothers and that is the increased chance of birth complications, I remember Atrus posted some interesting stuff on the subject a couple of months ago. Also seeing as that the girl in question is of Roman origin I cannot say that this should be used as a shining example of the positive outcomes of early motherhood as their poverty and lack of economic progression is staggering wherever they are, and this surely does not help them. And as a tax payer I cannot say I would be thrilled about the idea of a 11 year old becoming a mom, I would very likely have to sponsor said motherhood for quite some time... To me it seems that early motherhood in general leads to a life on the lower steps of society and lack of Independence.
 
Bento said:
Well there is one objection to such young mothers and that is the increased chance of birth complications, I remember Atrus posted some interesting stuff on the subject a couple of months ago. Also seeing as that the girl in question is of Roman origin I cannot say that this should be used as a shining example of the positive outcomes of early motherhood as their poverty and lack of economic progression is staggering wherever they are, and this surely does not help them. And as a tax payer I cannot say I would be thrilled about the idea of a 11 year old becoming a mom, I would very likely have to sponsor said motherhood for quite some time...

Eh, there's always abortion for things like that, but I'm not a fan of abortion and I digress.
 
To the best of my knowledge (I haven't studied the subject as thoroughly I can), pedophilia falls within the strict definition of a paraphilia, because it exclusively concerns sexual arousal and behaviors. This in contrast to a sexual orientation, which encompasses not just sexual arousal but also, and crucially, romantic and emotional attraction as well as one's sense of identity. So pedophilia is a disorder that occupies one facet of the far greater multifaceted body we call sexual orientation. Unlike homosexuality, for example, pedophilia involves the sexual objectification of a uniquely exploitable group of people who are fundamentally incapable of giving informed consent.

I want to add as a general note, without reference to or indictment of anyone in this thread, that it is factually and morally wrong, and intellectually dishonest, to compare gay people to pedophiles.
 
So what if it were, if the other doesn't give or is unable to give consent (children are unable, because of their inadequate cognitive development) it's one sided abuse of the other and as such wrong.

I don't believe it's a sexual orientation and consider it abhorrent.
 
KHarvey16 said:
You don't even understand what you're saying, never mind what I'm saying....Your appeals to emotion are predictable and pathetic....How is this hard for you to grasp? You haven't understood a single thing I've said this entire discussion.
herp derp, indeed. Whoever said you were the worst debater ever is pretty dead on. This is like the only tactic you know.

What's wrong Harvey? You said 'anyone who supports the abuse of a child should be punished'. Those who consume child porn sure are in support of it. And the removal of any punishment for those who do is simply for their benefit. I have no desire to see that happen. I have no problem with adjustments for anyone caught in those 'accidental situations. But your proposal of removing the law only benefits those who should get no benefit.

Anyway, I think we're done here. You can keep talking in circles if you want, and I'm sure you want to get a few more of those 'comprehension' jabs in to make you feel better, but anything else is pointless. Have at it.
 
Vyer said:
herp derp, indeed. Whoever said you were the worst debater ever is pretty dead on. This is like the only tactic you know.

What's wrong Harvey? You said 'anyone who supports the abuse of a child should be punished'. Those who consume child porn sure are in support of it. And the removal of any punishment for those who do is simply for their benefit. I have no desire to see that happen. I have no problem with adjustments for anyone caught in those 'accidental situations. But your proposal of removing the law only benefits those who should get no benefit.

Anyway, I think we're done here. You can keep talking in circles if you want, and I'm sure you want to get a few more of those 'comprehension' jabs in to make you feel better, but anything else is pointless. Have at it.

You seem to believe simply typing it makes it true. I've asked you many times now to prove it.
 
Monocle said:
To the best of my knowledge (I haven't studied the subject as thoroughly I can), pedophilia falls within the strict definition of a paraphilia, because it exclusively concerns sexual arousal and behaviors. This in contrast to a sexual orientation, which encompasses not just sexual arousal but also, and crucially, romantic and emotional attraction as well as one's sense of identity. So pedophilia is a disorder that occupies one facet of the far greater multifaceted body we call sexual orientation. Unlike homosexuality, for example, pedophilia involves the sexual objectification of a uniquely exploitable group of people who are fundamentally incapable of giving informed consent.

I want to add as a general note, without reference to or indictment of anyone in this thread, that it is factually and morally wrong, and intellectually dishonest, to compare gay people to pedophiles.

I believe opponents of describing it as a paraphilia argue that romance is possible, however one-sided it may be. Taking into consideration that many child molestation cases involve someone that is very close to the child (family member, consular, priest, teacher, ect.), takes place over a long period of time, and doesn't even always involve sexual intercourse, I think it's a little premature to automatically assume that sex is the only goal (seeing as how raping a random child would achieve said goal much faster). There tends to be a whole process behind their actions and getting the child to trust/like/love them tends to be an important one. However disturbing that is, it implies that they want some form of (positive) emotional response from their victims.

The reason why it is frequently related to homosexuality is because that too was once considered a paraphilia. Of the paraphilia, only pedophilia (and homosexuality before) involved a sexual attraction to an actual person. All other classifications of paraphilia refer to specific actions (e.g. Voyerism), sexual attraction to a specific (non-sexual) body part/inanimate object (e.g. Fetishism), or the sexual attraction to animals (zoophilia). It's simply a matter of comparing the terms, not the people themselves.
 
Arcipello said:
Just heard the news that police have arrested more than 100 people in Austria for downloading child porn from a server, all from different walks of life and ranging from 18 to 70, all of them however were men. Am I the only one who thinks pedophilia is genetic? It totally makes sense from a genetic point of view that males should be sexually attracted to younger females, it's like that in most species... But I think pedophiles are an extreme of that aspect due to genetic defect. Genetically there is no reason for an older woman to be attracted to young men because they aren't as fertile anymore, but men can stay fertile well into their older years. I don't see pedophilia as a conscious choice, it's akin to a sexuality almost. Don't blast me GAF, I'm not in defence of it... I just want to know what you guys think is the cause of it?

It's a crime which should be punishable by death.
 
Extollere said:
I believe you are refering to something called ephebophilia.
Yes, but people lump that in with pedophillia all the time. Which is what scares a lot of people (who were into younger chicks) into never having thoughts about younger females again. It's the same thing as being gay and being scared straight, but it happens all the time. Post a picture of a hot 16 year old chick and everyone will say, "Damn she's fine!" state her true age and everyone goes, "Oh disgusting, no way - you sickos". Like attraction is a switch you can turn on or off, based on what the government wants you to like.

Be attracted to who you want to be attracted to, just don't rape/molest anyone! That should be the general rule. Not the age part - the consent part. There is obviously a maturity level/age that goes w/ the ability to truly consent - but it's not 18... and there should be a grey period not a clear black or white age limit.
 
Thread reminds me of the Brass Eye episode on paedophilia.

Can anyone explain to me how hating people because they're paedophiles is any more logical than hating people because they're autistic?
 
Darknessbear said:
Yes, but people lump that in with pedophillia all the time. Which is what scares a lot of people (who were into younger chicks) into never having thoughts about younger females again. It's the same thing as being gay and being scared straight, but it happens all the time. Post a picture of a hot 16 year old chick and everyone will say, "Damn she's fine!" state her true age and everyone goes, "Oh disgusting, no way - you sickos". Like attraction is a switch you can turn on or off, based on what the government wants you to like.

Be attracted to who you want to be attracted to, just don't rape/molest anyone! That should be the general rule. Not the age part - the consent part. There is obviously a maturity level/age that goes w/ the ability to truly consent - but it's not 18... and there should be a grey period not a clear black or white age limit.

I agree with every single word of this.

I automatically feel sympathy for people admitting to be pedophiles, purely due to the fact they live in an unforgiving, ignorant society. It's as much a choice as homosexuality = i.e, not at all.

I was attracted to 12 and 13 year olds when I was I was 16 - 17, and it's something which caused me much internal conflict. Nowadays, I'm 24 and still sometimes will see attractive young girls walking around shopping centres, etc. Some of them are probably 13, yeah. But I have enough self-control to not take my attractions past that point. Am I a pedophile? No.

My sympathy stops when pedophiles act on their attractions in an exploitative manner.

Gaborn said:
meant? by whom? it's certainly evolutionarily advantageous, but 'meant'?

Yeah, poor choice of words. From an evolutionary standpoint, it seems obvious that the pubescent female form is engineered to be attractive to the opposite sex. A female's body has developed to the point where child-rearing is now possible, and the by-product of that is breasts, a more curvaceous, womanly figure, etc. Males are engineered to find these features attractive so as to set the wheels of evolution in motion.

As such, the fact society is so scornful of men being attracted to pubescent girls has never made sense to me. IT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
 
Some people link ephebophilia in with pedophilia because while it's not the same on a physical level, you can't tell me a well developed teen has the same mental/emotional maturity as an older woman. So when a much older man is interested primarily in young women (even if they're physically developed), it still bothers me.
 
Devolution said:
Is this comparison serious.
Why not? It may be that autism is genetic and paedophilia isn't, but the clear part is that neither of them wake up one day and think 'oooh, I think I'm gonna be a a paedophile', or 'hmm, I feel like a bit of autism'. And if it isn't their choice, how can you hate them for it?
You don't decide who you find attractive, you just do or you don't.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but otherwise...
 
Eh, it all boils down to education and perception.

True pedophilia is not acceptable, and will never be. However, I believe Hebephilia and Ephebophilia will be legal in the next 500 years, with a massive restructuring and redefining of child rights, giving them far greater powers closer to adults.
 
Pedophilia isn't a sexuality, it's a disorder. The key difference is that it's harmful.

People hear the term "pedophile" and think "OMG RAPIST" and that's not quite it. I don't know why so many people don't seem to understand this, but it's a desire. Obviously raping children (or... anyone) is indefensibly wrong. There's nothing you can say to justify it. Even if an adult has a strong urge to have sex with a child, they always make the decision whether to act on it or not. The desire to have sex with a child is unfortunate and I have pity for people who feel that way. But the act is horrible and anyone who does it is a terrible person who should be locked up for a long, long time.
 
angelkimne said:
Why not? It may be that autism is genetic and paedophilia isn't, but the clear part is that neither of them wake up one day and think 'oooh, I think I'm gonna be a a paedophile', or 'hmm, I feel like a bit of autism'. And if it isn't their choice, how can you hate them for it?
You don't decide who you find attractive, you just do or you don't.

Maybe there's something I'm missing, but otherwise...

Can you give an example of someone hating a person because they're autistic?
 
Cartman86 said:
Sexuality is who you are attracted too isn't it? Didn't think there was anything else to it.

Also the question of weather homosexuality is a "defect" or something really comes down to definitions. If it is harmful to the person it's a defect (again though by our own standards). I don't think homosexuality fits in that category. Yes it is outside the norm, but is the norm right? Screams of the naturalistic fallacy to me.

No. Fetishes are what you're attracted to, as has been pointed out that's probably a better characterization for pedophilia. The kids in these cases aren't really 'loved' they're objectified. You don't 'grow out of' actually loving someone, you love them for who they are, not how OLD they are, and yet a pedophile is DEFINED not by their love of a certain person, but of a certain AGE of person, and when they get too old, they move on.

Sexuality is based on the idea of forming emotional connections, the physical aspect is incidental to that, but not dependent on it. You love the PERSON, not just being able to have sex with them. It's complex, multi-faceted and sustained regardless of secondary characteristics.

edit: Damn, didn't mean to double post, didn't realize the thread was moving that slowly.
 
I'll just leave this here. 12yo Vietnamese model.

hoang-bao-tran-le-12-year-old-vietnamese-professional-model-03.jpg


image.jpg


Seriously tho. There probably needs to be more discussion on paedophiles in the legal/medical fields to properly guage how they work, and why etc instead of a black and white picture.

However, I'm going to guess that a large % is purely fetish based (getting their rocks off at the thoughts of seeing naked children etc), whilst theres actually a small % of true paedophiles (people genuinely attracted to prepubescent children and nothing else) based on the way humans and sexual fetishes work.
 
ajim said:
Seriously tho. There probably needs to be more discussion on paedophiles in the legal/medical fields to properly guage how they work, and why etc instead of a black and white picture.

However, I'm going to guess that a large % is purely fetish based (getting their rocks off at the thoughts of seeing naked children etc), whilst theres actually a small % of true paedophiles (people genuinely attracted to prepubescent children and nothing else) based on the way humans and sexual fetishes work.

I imagine finding test subjects would be fairly hard.
 
Devolution said:
Some people link ephebophilia in with pedophilia because while it's not the same on a physical level, you can't tell me a well developed teen has the same mental/emotional maturity as an older woman. So when a much older man is interested primarily in young women (even if they're physically developed), it still bothers me.

Some adults are also emotionally stunted, while a fifteen year old can be quite mature. There's no hard and fast rule and everything is arbitrary.

I generally agree that pedophiles/hebephiles are those who are only physically attracted to youth, and once that person grows older, the person loses attraction. But even this is somewhat complicated. I sincerely doubt someone in their 20s will have the same set of attraction they will have in their 40s, or 60s when they want to remarry.


Society needs to acknowledge attraction to youth exists and that attraction exists in a continuum and 'deal with it'.

They also need to deal with the fact that some are abusers, others are simply gawkers. Criminalizing the latter is what is sort of being discussed by a few others, and society is destroying the lives of perfectly productive people and infringing on the civil liberties of everyone simply for 'looking'.
 
Cartman86 said:
I wonder if Kinsey ever did anything on this... I imagine it's a combination though (minus the coffee).

Kinsey interviewed many pedophiles, which is one of the arguments his opponents use to discredit his work and to eventually accuse him of supporting pedophilia (which of course is not true). I don't think he came to a definitive conclusion on the origin, but I don't think he come to a conclusion about anything, he just reported statistics.

And of course it's not a sexuality, it's a very specific sexual desire, so is more like a fetish, it's like saying people only attracted to blondes are "blondsexual", that's absurd.

And I can't believe there are people who think a sexual relationship between a child and an adult can be healthy. Relationships between actual adults with big differences of age are problematic enough, and now you add to the equation someone inmature, physically as well as emotionally? are you people serious? We consider abuse when parents feed their child to the point of morbid obesity, and you can be sure that the kid will say that he likes all the food he eats. A sexual relationship with a kid is even worse, whether he enjoys it or not is really not relevant, rape victims can experience pleasure, because that's simply biology, and is actually one of the most complicated things for a rape victim to overcome and accept, now would you use that excuse to justify rape?
 
I don't think it's possible to define maturity based on age. Of course there are general occurrences w/ immature teens, but to say "At age X you are this mature" is insane. Take Taylor Swift versus Snooki, yea Snooki is a couple years older but the maturity levels are miles different. (I'm not a Taylor Swift fan... just think she is extremely mature for her age).

So if we were to define the Age of consent based on maturity, then it sounds like sexual activity should be based on a test (similar to a driving test :D). And also, from what I know Ephobophiles/pedophiles aren't generally interested in immature acting kids and more into the sophisticated mature young looking females (either legal or not).
 
DonasaurusRex said:
genetic or not...it is not something we as a society should consider as being "ok"
Definitely.

One thing that makes it difficult too, is that technology will always be in favour of people wanting to commit illegal acts like child porn though, especially when software like Freenet and Tor are free to use, and overrun with child pornographers and users.
 
ajim said:
Definitely.

One thing that makes it difficult too, is that technology will always be in favour of people wanting to commit illegal acts like child porn though, especially when software like Freenet and Tor are free to use, and overrun with child pornographers and users.


yeah and that tears me, cause i want a decentralized net without all the hierarchy and control...but alas i have to admit that deep down ....as a species we do some dumb shit with our time and peddling your affections for underage children is just despicable , its not worth arguing this , for the sake of children we have to do whatever it takes to scour those fucks from the net and society. They want to make their selfish fucking argument for their own sakes that they arent doing anything wrong but they cant and wont deal with the fallout when some child they rape turns into an avatar of insanity...or death on two legs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom