Louis Theroux - A place for paedophiles

dr ddd · Post by **dr ddd** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:12 pm

datura wrote:
Paedophilia is a sexual fetish, just a particularly unpleasant one. It doesn't mean that they are not intelligent people, they are just attracted to children, as socially despicable as that may be, and any that perpetuate the sexual exploitation of minors deserve all they get.

It has to be said that many of the images in the media aren't helpful and the gradual sexualisation of children in mainstream outlets over the years should be looked at. Just look at Britney when her first main video had her cavorting around in a skimpy school uniform when she was 15/16 and all the Miley Cyrus stuff as well.

personally, i think there is a huge difference between people having a fetish for young looking people/ pubescent teenagers (although i personally don't understand or feel comfortable with it and do agree with the fact that the media should get more responsible about it) and abusing and raping new born babies and toddlers and so on (this is the only time i get pretty un-pc - but thats seriously whacked out sickness, totally unnatural inhuman behaviour. I think serious intervention needs to be taken, whether surgical, medicinal or institutional).

datura · Post by **datura** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:34 pm

dr ddd wrote:
datura wrote:
Paedophilia is a sexual fetish, just a particularly unpleasant one. It doesn't mean that they are not intelligent people, they are just attracted to children, as socially despicable as that may be, and any that perpetuate the sexual exploitation of minors deserve all they get.

It has to be said that many of the images in the media aren't helpful and the gradual sexualisation of children in mainstream outlets over the years should be looked at. Just look at Britney when her first main video had her cavorting around in a skimpy school uniform when she was 15/16 and all the Miley Cyrus stuff as well.
personally, i think there is a huge difference between people having a fetish for young looking people/ pubescent teenagers (although i personally don't understand or feel comfortable with it and do agree with the fact that the media should get more responsible about it) and abusing and raping new born babies and toddlers and so on (this is the only time i get pretty un-pc - but thats seriously whacked out sickness, totally unnatural inhuman behaviour. I think serious intervention needs to be taken, whether surgical, medicinal or institutional).

This is an extremely emotive subject, but I'm not sure where my discussion point about the sexualistaion of teenagers became linked to abusing new born babies. I'm guessing, but I assume that those who perform those acts are the minority of paedophiles and extremely rare (thankfully).

Jubz · Post by **Jubz** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:14 pm

CityZen wrote:
UmkhontoWeSizwe wrote:i honestly just think these people are scum and would have absolutely no problem with anything untoward happening to them

fuck spending $400,000,000 on a complex and $200,000 a year to keep them
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but I think it's worth pointing out that a large chunk of these deviants were themselves sexually abused as children.
Just writing off whole sections of society, no matter how evil we think they are, has certain fascist connotations i feel.
There has to be a better solution for the 21st century.

Very well put.

ELLFIVEDEE · Post by **ELLFIVEDEE** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:20 pm

Read this topic last night, then watched this on iPlayer.

Pretty screwed up, and that guy went on some next level defensive about the picture on his wall! But if he was right and he didn't get it for that purpose, then surely it proves he has a problem because even when he tried not to be a peadophile, he is?

All in all, pretty fucked up program, and pretty big waste of money to create that place. A firing range would have been much cheaper.

umkhontowesizwe · Post by **umkhontowesizwe** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:22 pm

CityZen wrote:
UmkhontoWeSizwe wrote:i honestly just think these people are scum and would have absolutely no problem with anything untoward happening to them

fuck spending $400,000,000 on a complex and $200,000 a year to keep them
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but I think it's worth pointing out that a large chunk of these deviants were themselves sexually abused as children.
Just writing off whole sections of society, no matter how evil we think they are, has certain fascist connotations i feel.
There has to be a better solution for the 21st century.

i would be all for a better solution but until one is presented, there is too much risk. i'm not exactly sure of the statistics but i'm fairly sure the re-offence rate for these people upon release is very, very high. if wanting to protect children has fascist connotations then so be it.

firky · Post by **firky** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:16 pm

datura wrote:
Those two statements are rather contradictory. You call them 'nonces' and then that they should be seen as 'people'.

That is because nonces are people, they're not dogs or hamsters.

Paedophilia is a sexual fetish, just a particularly unpleasant one.

Wrong. No one really knows the causes of paedophilia, there is seems to be a correlation between their own child abuse - behaviour is learned as a child and they may well see it as normal. I don't think you know what a fetish is.

Look up a document called 'Archives of Sexual Behaviour', I think it is published by the Department of Behavioural Sexology, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry (Canada).

Also there is evidence from the BJP that paedophilia could be caused by a hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal dysfunction. I don't suppose anyone of your little mind to even understand that, but hey ho! Am a clever tnuc, you're not, and that is why you base your arguments on ad-hominem attacks. Because that's the only ammo you have.

It's a shame because you do seem to be quite an alright guy, just need to know your place. Which is washing pots and pans, or some other menial job.

It has to be said that many of the images in the media aren't helpful and the gradual sexualisation of children in mainstream outlets over the years should be looked at. Just look at Britney when her first main video had her cavorting around in a skimpy school uniform when she was 15/16 and all the Miley Cyrus stuff as well.

I agree, I can remember when the Daily Mirror had a count down to Charlotte Church becoming legal and on the very next page tehy were damning nonces.

Don't bother replying with your peurile, emo, lesbian or other laughable retorts as they're good for a giggle once or twice then you just look like well... the joke you come across as.

sick cat · Post by **sick cat** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:27 pm

FIRKY STOP IT

Jesus, I know you are bored babe but dont take wind him up. He cant help it

datura · Post by **datura** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:33 pm

I won't bother to dignify that with a response as I don't want to be responsible for causing you more 'anxiety'.

I didn't get personal, I just stated that your comments were contradictory as you used a derogatory term to describe them then declare that they should be viewed as people.

To say it isn't a sexual fetish then say there isn't a definitive cause is clearly wrong as it could be, nothing is ruled out.

sick cat · Post by **sick cat** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:35 pm

Firky 1 Datura 0

And if you take the piss out of someone who is suspected to have hepatic cancer then you really are thick

datura · Post by **datura** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:41 pm

Sick Cat wrote:Firky 1 Datura 0

And if you take the piss out of someone who is suspected to have hepatic cancer then you really are thick

miscreant · Post by **miscreant** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:45 pm

sick cat · Post by **sick cat** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:47 pm

datura wrote: Thick tnuc

URRRHHHH I IKE DIS BEET UG UG UHHHH

datura · Post by **datura** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:52 pm

You're not very good at attempting a wind up are you, petal?

sick cat · Post by **sick cat** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:55 pm

What makes you think I am winding you up?

firky · Post by **firky** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:08 pm

Oh leave it out you two, fucking hate arguing over petty shit over the internet

He made a daft comment and saw things in B&W, no need to ruin a thread over it. I wondered what you were laughing at, cat

dat' aint a bad lad, at all, just bored - same as me.

Dead Rats · Post by **Dead Rats** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:32 am

I didn't think it before, but after watching this there is deffo a paedophile look, innit?

miscreant · Post by **miscreant** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:17 am

Dead Rats wrote:I didn't think it before, but after watching this there is deffo a paedophile look, innit?

fuck aye, you could tell them a mile off. Its weird...My grandad actually has that look but he's definitely not a beaster...

Dead Rats · Post by **Dead Rats** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:51 am

MiscreanT wrote:
Dead Rats wrote:I didn't think it before, but after watching this there is deffo a paedophile look, innit?
Its weird...My grandad actually has that look but he's definitely not a beaster...

You were probably too small to remember.

magma · Post by **magma** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:39 am

Dead Rats wrote:I didn't think it before, but after watching this there is deffo a paedophile look, innit?

WORD. I was quite surprised by that.... stereotypes is stereotypes for a reason, apparently! Slightly overweight and wearing a friendly-looking jumper.

Someone should get Russell Grant and Giles Brandreth in for a few questions....

capo ultra · Post by **capo ultra** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:28 pm

Magma wrote:
Dead Rats wrote:I didn't think it before, but after watching this there is deffo a paedophile look, innit?
WORD. I was quite surprised by that.... stereotypes is stereotypes for a reason, apparently! Slightly overweight and wearing a friendly-looking jumper.

Someone should get Russell Grant and Giles Brandreth in for a few questions....

Long fingernails

That's all I'm saying. Look out for the fingernails

Louis Theroux - A place for paedophiles

Who is online