How Long Should Paedophiles Get?

First topic message reminder :

29th April 2014


12 months?

5 years?

5 months?

Please discuss.

What makes these men (or women) act on their desires? They know the law, they know that they will be severely punished if they're caught, and they know that they'll be outcasts from society, yet they still do it.

Is it some kind of dreadful compulsion which they can't control? Those who kill the child - do they do so because there is no chance the child can name them, or is the killing all part of the desire?

FluffyBunny wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Couldn't agree more - there are many many natural things man could do - fighting being one that springs to mind which has been outlawed, but will always be impossible to stop altogether - same with men having sex with 13 - 16 year olds, hence why we understand it, and sentence appropriately.

But we don't understand it do we because men who have sex with 15 year old's are put on the sex offenders register when if the girl had been just a couple of months older it would have been totally legal.

That man is immoral and wrong to have had sex with a 15 year old girl but he is not a peadophile and shouldn't be labelled so yet he is.

I don't think the current legal system is sentencing appropriately at all.

Well - is he labelled a paedophile by the authorities? I don't think he is.

He's just labelled a paedo by our chav underclass who don't read.

(i think) - maybe somebody could check it out.

harrymuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

No its not a learned behavior,it's an innate preference.
It's a perversion of course,but it is natural TO THEM.

If you are going to kill paedophiles then all convicted murderers should be killed.All life is equally precious.

No, I'm sorry Fluffybunny,  but not all life is equally precious.   We'll have to agree to disagree on this.  

I'm a staunch supporter of the Death Penalty.  Nothing would ever change my views on that.

I have no problem with convicted murderers being put to death.  As long as it was intent to kill and not accidental.

Yes we can agree to disagree. All murder is beyond comprehension.Everyone is someone's mother,sister or child.

I don't agree with the death penalty.

Raggamuffin wrote:What makes these men (or women) act on their desires? They know the law, they know that they will be severely punished if they're caught, and they know that they'll be outcasts from society, yet they still do it.

Is it some kind of dreadful compulsion which they can't control? Those who kill the child - do they do so because there is no chance the child can name them, or is the killing all part of the desire?

Yes it is an evil compulsion they can't control.Think of it as an addiction

I have never understood your final statements myself,I don't know for the life of me why they do that.Clearly they are clinically insane and that is all we know.

BigAndy9 wrote:So what about racists and homophobes?

Can they learn not to act on their desires?

Paedophiles and racist-homophobes aren't even in the same category as far as I'm concerned.

A person that is gay, is born that way, they can't change it but also, they're not hurting anyone. But they're more than likely to be hurt at some point in their life time. Be it physically or mentally.

Paedophiles destroy children and their families. Not just for awhile, but for a lifetime.

Racists are ignorant. The KKK can have a baby and that baby is being abused imo. Brainwashing a child to become a racist is child abuse and the child should be taken from that family.

I've been accused of being racist. I'm not. I just don't like thugs-twats, be it black, white, brown, red, yellow, purple or green. If you act like an arse, I won't like you, doesn't matter what your colour is or your background.

If that's racist, then the world is full of nothing but racists.

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

But we don't understand it do we because men who have sex with 15 year old's are put on the sex offenders register when if the girl had been just a couple of months older it would have been totally legal.

That man is immoral and wrong to have had sex with a 15 year old girl but he is not a peadophile and shouldn't be labelled so yet he is.

I don't think the current legal system is sentencing appropriately at all.

Well - is he labelled a paedophile by the authorities?  I don't think he is.

He's just labelled a paedo by our chav underclass who don't read.

(i think) - maybe somebody could check it out.  

I'm sure he is labelled a sex offender,if not a paedophile, by the authorities

That teacher was who was intimate with his 15 year old pupil and ran way to France. I think.

I just wonder where the age for 'dating' young girls should be then if some think that 13+ is a fancy-able age?...so where should it stop?...as some men will fancy school lasses in that age group and say that thy are desirable, but others will say much younger is desirable has to stop somewhere ...
What I'm saying is...some will say a girl can be 'dated' so long as she is showing physical maturity , but wee girls at aged 11 and 12 can be showing signs of physical maturity...

This surely is partly why we have laws to safeguard kids and teenagers.

harrymuffin wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:So what about racists and homophobes?

Can they learn not to act on their desires?

Paedophiles and racist-homophobes aren't even in the same category as far as I'm concerned.

A person that is gay, is born that way,  they can't change it but also,  they're not hurting anyone.  But they're more than likely to be hurt at some point in their life time.  Be it physically or mentally.

Paedophiles destroy children and their families. Not just for awhile,  but for a lifetime.

Racists are ignorant.  The KKK can have a baby and that baby is being abused imo.  Brainwashing a child to become a racist is child abuse and the child should be taken from that family.

I've been accused of being racist.   I'm not.  I just don't like thugs-twats,  be it black, white, brown, red, yellow, purple or green.  If you act like an arse,  I won't like you,  doesn't matter what your colour is or your background.  

If that's racist,  then the world is full of nothing but racists.

So you don't think paedophiles can control their perversions,you think even if they are monitored by the police every day of their lives ,they will one day break down and molest a child?

FluffyBunny wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:

Paedophiles and racist-homophobes aren't even in the same category as far as I'm concerned.

A person that is gay, is born that way,  they can't change it but also,  they're not hurting anyone.  But they're more than likely to be hurt at some point in their life time.  Be it physically or mentally.

Paedophiles destroy children and their families. Not just for awhile,  but for a lifetime.

Racists are ignorant.  The KKK can have a baby and that baby is being abused imo.  Brainwashing a child to become a racist is child abuse and the child should be taken from that family.

I've been accused of being racist.   I'm not.  I just don't like thugs-twats,  be it black, white, brown, red, yellow, purple or green.  If you act like an arse,  I won't like you,  doesn't matter what your colour is or your background.  

If that's racist,  then the world is full of nothing but racists.

So you don't think paedophiles can control their perversions,you think even if they are monitored by the police every day of their lives ,they will one day break down and molest  a child?

If they're in prison, of course they have no access to children per se. If they're on the outside, yes they would molest again. But don't fool yourself into thinking that these molesters don't get things smuggled into them in prison aka child pornography, magazines, etc.

There was a man, that was allowed to view his child pornography while in prison. His own collection. It was a disgusting slap in the face to the victims.

He was allowed to do this, because he was representing himself. And used the excuse for it, as research. The sickening truth of it was, he was pleasuring himself, watching the children being abused over and over.

Things like that have no business breathing the same air as me.

Joy Division wrote:I just wonder where the age for 'dating' young girls should be then if some think that 13+ is a fancy-able age?...so where should it stop?...as some men will fancy school lasses in that age group and say that thy are desirable, but others will say much younger is desirable has to stop somewhere ...
What I'm saying is...some will say a girl can be 'dated' so long as she is showing physical maturity , but wee girls at aged 11 and 12 can be showing signs of physical maturity...

This surely is partly why we have laws to safeguard kids and teenagers.

I agree with you,we need laws to safe guard children of course.A 13 year old girl may have the physical characteristics of a woman physically but mentally she might not be ready to have sexual relations so of course we need an age of consent.

Personally I would lower it to 15,that is just my view.

But no I do not agree with your final point. An 11 year old is simply too young and will not display enough signs of physical maturity to counteract the fact she is a child with the face of an 11 year old. A man who has 'normal hetero' desires will not be attracted to an 11 year old.

Everyone tends to go a bit nutty where children are involved which is understandable.What needs to be kept in mind is that paedophiles have no interest in children going through puberty,teenagers etc.They are attracted to the pre pubescent form,that is the whole point.If a man is interested in the form of a 14 year old he is surely immoral but certainly not a paedophile.

harrymuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

So you don't think paedophiles can control their perversions,you think even if they are monitored by the police every day of their lives ,they will one day break down and molest  a child?

If they're in prison,  of course they have no access to children per se.   If they're on the outside,  yes they would molest again.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that these molesters don't get things smuggled into them in prison aka child pornography, magazines, etc.

There was a man,  that was allowed to view his child pornography while in prison.  His own collection.  It was a disgusting slap in the face to the victims.  

He was allowed to do this,  because he was representing himself.  And used the excuse for it,  as research.   The sickening truth of it was,  he was pleasuring himself, watching the children being abused over and over.

Things like that have no business breathing the same air as me.

I agree that is sickening and disgusting.

But surely there are paedophiles who have NOT acted on their desires but have just been caught with unacceptable porn?These individuals are monitored by the police are they not following their release from prison?

The police clearly believe these individuals will not abuse a child.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I just wonder where the age for 'dating' young girls should be then if some think that 13+ is a fancy-able age?...so where should it stop?...as some men will fancy school lasses in that age group and say that thy are desirable, but others will say much younger is desirable has to stop somewhere ...
What I'm saying is...some will say a girl can be 'dated' so long as she is showing physical maturity , but wee girls at aged 11 and 12 can be showing signs of physical maturity...

This surely is partly why we have laws to safeguard kids and teenagers.

I agree with you,we need laws to safe guard children of course.A  13 year old girl may have the physical characteristics of a woman physically but mentally she might not be ready to have  sexual relations so of course we need an age of consent.

Personally I would lower it to 15,that is just my view.

But no I do not agree with your final point. An 11 year old is simply too young and will not display enough signs of physical maturity to counteract the fact she is a child with the face of an 11 year old. A man who has 'normal hetero' desires will not be attracted to an 11 year old.

Everyone tends to go a bit nutty where children are involved which is understandable.What needs to be kept in mind is that paedophiles have no interest in children going through puberty,teenagers etc.They are attracted to the pre pubescent form,that is the whole point.If a man is interested in the form of  a 14 year old he is surely immoral but certainly not a paedophile.

What I'm trying to say though Fluffy, is that some girls aged 11 or 12 can show physical signs of being more mature than what their mindset is...

Ok most nay be at 13 or 14 before showing physical signs of maturing, but some can be as young as 11 and 12 , quite frightening, and those who do look a good bit older can get a guy into serious trouble.

I understand that some girls do look much older and that some guys have been caught out thinking. They may be 16, 17 or possibly even older....

No doubt about it that some young lassies do have the older look , and present a kind of danger to blokes say in their twenties and thirties, because their mind is not tied in with the way they look as you say...a more immature mind but older looks.


But what I think needs done for sure are far more severe punishments for those sick gets who rape babies toddlers etc....

FluffyBunny wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:

If they're in prison,  of course they have no access to children per se.   If they're on the outside,  yes they would molest again.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that these molesters don't get things smuggled into them in prison aka child pornography, magazines, etc.

There was a man,  that was allowed to view his child pornography while in prison.  His own collection.  It was a disgusting slap in the face to the victims.  

He was allowed to do this,  because he was representing himself.  And used the excuse for it,  as research.   The sickening truth of it was,  he was pleasuring himself, watching the children being abused over and over.

Things like that have no business breathing the same air as me.

I agree that is sickening and disgusting.

But surely there are paedophiles who have NOT acted on their desires but have just been caught with unacceptable porn?These individuals are monitored by the police are they not following their release from prison?

The police clearly believe these individuals will not abuse a child.

What does it say about a man or woman that wants to watch an 8 month old infant being sexually abused?  Or watching a 2 and 3 year old made to do things to each other for these sick monsters pleasure?  

I personally would rather see scum like that locked up, than walking the streets and eventually acting on their desire.

As far as men ogling young girls.  I blame a lot of that on the media.  Vogue uses 8 year old girls for their covers or in adverts, dressed scantily, wearing Manolo Blahniks and face full of harsh make up.  It's disgusting.

They make thong panties for 2 year olds.  Bra sets for 4 year olds.  And these ignorant parents buy into this.  Parents that let their little girls cover their faces in 5 inches of make up at the age of 10 and as I said, dress as though they're 22.

These pageants for toddlers are nothing more than a paedophiles paradise.

harrymuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

So you don't think paedophiles can control their perversions,you think even if they are monitored by the police every day of their lives ,they will one day break down and molest  a child?

If they're in prison,  of course they have no access to children per se.   If they're on the outside,  yes they would molest again.  But don't fool yourself into thinking that these molesters don't get things smuggled into them in prison aka child pornography, magazines, etc.

There was a man,  that was allowed to view his child pornography while in prison.  His own collection.  It was a disgusting slap in the face to the victims.  

He was allowed to do this,  because he was representing himself.  And used the excuse for it,  as research.   The sickening truth of it was,  he was pleasuring himself, watching the children being abused over and over.

Things like that have no business breathing the same air as me.

That is truly awful Harry, it's bad enough we have to pay for his ilk, but for him to be allowed to view that filth in prison is sickening and it makes folk mad.


I think the urge never leaves them and those who rape babies and infants should never ever be released.

That is truly awful Harry, it's bad enough we have to pay for his ilk, but for him to be allowed to view that filth in prison is sickening and it makes folk mad. I think the urge never leaves them and those who rape babies and infants should never ever be released. wrote:

There is no reform for them. They'll not stop. They never do.

harrymuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree that is sickening and disgusting.

But surely there are paedophiles who have NOT acted on their desires but have just been caught with unacceptable porn?These individuals are monitored by the police are they not following their release from prison?

The police clearly believe these individuals will not abuse a child.

What does it say about a man or woman that wants to watch an 8 month old infant being sexually abused?  Or watching a 2 and 3 year old made to do things to each other for these sick monsters pleasure?  

I personally would rather see scum like that locked up, than walking the streets and eventually acting on their desire.

As far as men ogling young girls.  I blame a lot of that on the media.  Vogue uses 8 year old girls for their covers or in adverts, dressed scantily, wearing Manolo Blahniks and face full of harsh make up.  It's disgusting.

They make thong panties for 2 year olds.  Bra sets for 4 year olds.  And these ignorant parents buy into this.  Parents that let their little girls cover their faces in 5 inches of make up at the age of 10 and as I said, dress as though they're 22.

These pageants for toddlers are nothing more than a paedophiles paradise.

I agree with alot of what you say.

But maybe I'm being naive but I thought some individuals who have never abused a child but had urges wanted to be saved from themselves and their own disturbed desires.

I saw a programme where one sex offender wanted to be castrated and intended to do it themselves.

Do you believe a man with these disgusting preferences that has never offended should be put in prison for life just in case he does?

harrymuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree that is sickening and disgusting.

But surely there are paedophiles who have NOT acted on their desires but have just been caught with unacceptable porn?These individuals are monitored by the police are they not following their release from prison?

The police clearly believe these individuals will not abuse a child.

What does it say about a man or woman that wants to watch an 8 month old infant being sexually abused?  Or watching a 2 and 3 year old made to do things to each other for these sick monsters pleasure?  

I personally would rather see scum like that locked up, than walking the streets and eventually acting on their desire.

As far as men ogling young girls.  I blame a lot of that on the media.  Vogue uses 8 year old girls for their covers or in adverts, dressed scantily, wearing Manolo Blahniks and face full of harsh make up.  It's disgusting.

They make thong panties for 2 year olds.  Bra sets for 4 year olds.  And these ignorant parents buy into this.  Parents that let their little girls cover their faces in 5 inches of make up at the age of 10 and as I said, dress as though they're 22.

These pageants for toddlers are nothing more than a paedophiles paradise.

I totally agree Harry, it is beyond sickening and no wonder we are hearing stories of people executing monsters like this who rape babies and get toddlers to act out sick perverted games for amusement...

I once read a story about a sicko who had raped a baby then killed the baby and buried the baby within stone walls...I felt an overwhelming feeling of sadness and nausea.

That bastard escaped justice , as by the time this child had been discovered the pervert had died.


I never know there were clothes and underwear made like that for toddlers Harry....that's horrible.

Joy Division wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:

What does it say about a man or woman that wants to watch an 8 month old infant being sexually abused?  Or watching a 2 and 3 year old made to do things to each other for these sick monsters pleasure?  

I personally would rather see scum like that locked up, than walking the streets and eventually acting on their desire.

As far as men ogling young girls.  I blame a lot of that on the media.  Vogue uses 8 year old girls for their covers or in adverts, dressed scantily, wearing Manolo Blahniks and face full of harsh make up.  It's disgusting.

They make thong panties for 2 year olds.  Bra sets for 4 year olds.  And these ignorant parents buy into this.  Parents that let their little girls cover their faces in 5 inches of make up at the age of 10 and as I said, dress as though they're 22.

These pageants for toddlers are nothing more than a paedophiles paradise.

I totally agree Harry, it is beyond sickening and no wonder we are hearing stories of people executing  monsters like this who rape babies and get toddlers to act out sick perverted games for amusement...

I once read a story about a sicko who had raped a baby then killed the baby and buried the baby within  stone walls...I felt an overwhelming feeling of sadness and nausea.

That bastard escaped justice , as by the time this child had been discovered the pervert had died.


I never know there were clothes and underwear made like that for toddlers Harry....that's horrible.

I can't understand the mindset of monsters like that.I just can't.

There was a man I read about just a few months back, he'd raped his own infant daughter to death. She was only 2 weeks old. She hemorrhaged to death due to his penetration of her.

Had I been the Mother of that infant, I'd have killed him right there when I came home and found my daughter covered in blood.

Joy Division wrote:I just wonder where the age for 'dating' young girls should be then if some think that 13+ is a fancy-able age?...so where should it stop?...as some men will fancy school lasses in that age group and say that thy are desirable, but others will say much younger is desirable has to stop somewhere ...
What I'm saying is...some will say a girl can be 'dated' so long as she is showing physical maturity , but wee girls at aged 11 and 12 can be showing signs of physical maturity...

This surely is partly why we have laws to safeguard kids and teenagers.

Good point on the dating thing JD - is it ok to date a 15 year old if you're 20 - or 40 for that matter?

I recall a story about Sir Jimmy Savile - he was in a Rolls with a girl - a policeman knocked on his window and asked what he was doing - "waiting until midnight - she's 16 tomorrow" he said.

Surely that's ok then?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I just wonder where the age for 'dating' young girls should be then if some think that 13+ is a fancy-able age?...so where should it stop?...as some men will fancy school lasses in that age group and say that thy are desirable, but others will say much younger is desirable has to stop somewhere ...
What I'm saying is...some will say a girl can be 'dated' so long as she is showing physical maturity , but wee girls at aged 11 and 12 can be showing signs of physical maturity...

This surely is partly why we have laws to safeguard kids and teenagers.

I agree with you,we need laws to safe guard children of course.A  13 year old girl may have the physical characteristics of a woman physically but mentally she might not be ready to have  sexual relations so of course we need an age of consent.

Personally I would lower it to 15,that is just my view.

But no I do not agree with your final point. An 11 year old is simply too young and will not display enough signs of physical maturity to counteract the fact she is a child with the face of an 11 year old. A man who has 'normal hetero' desires will not be attracted to an 11 year old.

Everyone tends to go a bit nutty where children are involved which is understandable.What needs to be kept in mind is that paedophiles have no interest in children going through puberty,teenagers etc.They are attracted to the pre pubescent form,that is the whole point.If a man is interested in the form of  a 14 year old he is surely immoral but certainly not a paedophile.

Well that obviously isn't true - if as you say a 14 year old is a woman, physically, and the man is interested in the form - that's ok.

If he acts upon it physically, towards her, that's illegal.

harrymuffin wrote:There was a man I read about just a few months back,  he'd raped his own infant daughter to death.  She was only 2 weeks old.  She hemorrhaged to death due to his penetration of her.

Had I been the Mother of that infant,  I'd have killed him right there when I came home and found my daughter covered in blood.

Oh no how awful, you know Harry, not long ago I heard of a similar one where the beast used an instrument on the poor wee baby with the same terribly sad outcome..

I would also not hesitate to execute them there and then either.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:I just wonder where the age for 'dating' young girls should be then if some think that 13+ is a fancy-able age?...so where should it stop?...as some men will fancy school lasses in that age group and say that thy are desirable, but others will say much younger is desirable has to stop somewhere ...
What I'm saying is...some will say a girl can be 'dated' so long as she is showing physical maturity , but wee girls at aged 11 and 12 can be showing signs of physical maturity...

This surely is partly why we have laws to safeguard kids and teenagers.

Good point on the dating thing JD - is it ok to date a 15 year old if you're 20 - or 40 for that matter?

I recall a story about Sir Jimmy Savile - he was in a Rolls with a girl - a policeman knocked on his window and asked what he was doing - "waiting until midnight - she's 16 tomorrow" he said.

Surely that's ok then?

Well I'm not an expert at everything Andy!!, of a 20 year old was dating a 15 year old I wouldn't totally approve , but many lads that age are still kind of kids themselves tbh, so I don't think I would see that as quite sinister....

40 on the other hand ??...well that's just not right Savile was way much older than his victims, he was well into his fifties and beyond when he was molesting his victims, when it comes to a man being well old enough to be a girls father or Grandfather, I find that repugnant and clearly wrong.

Joy Division wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:There was a man I read about just a few months back,  he'd raped his own infant daughter to death.  She was only 2 weeks old.  She hemorrhaged to death due to his penetration of her.

Had I been the Mother of that infant,  I'd have killed him right there when I came home and found my daughter covered in blood.

Oh no how awful, you know Harry, not long ago I heard of a similar one where the beast used an instrument on the poor wee baby with the same terribly sad outcome..

I would also not hesitate to execute them there and then either.

It's bad enough when it's a child minder or someone like that, but when it's the parent. I just cannot wrap my head around that.

That's why I'll never agree to things like that having a life sentence, just do away with them. The world is populated enough as it is, make room for some good people.

You have a daughter Andy...and let's say she is my daughters age..15

What would you think if she strolled through the door with a bloke of 50 years old , saying ...Dad, I'd like you to meet my new boyfriend?..

harrymuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Oh no how awful, you know Harry, not long ago I heard of a similar one where the beast used an instrument on the poor wee baby with the same terribly sad outcome..

I would also not hesitate to execute them there and then either.

It's bad enough when it's a child minder or someone like that, but when it's the parent.  I just cannot wrap my head around that.

That's why I'll never agree to things like that having a life sentence,  just do away with them.  The world is populated enough as it is,  make room for some good people.

..in cases like this Harry...absolutely, some will say why kill and be as bad as them , I think with lethal injection they would be getting off lightly...

I think they should set the poor wee babies other family loose on them ,mor let other prisoners do to them as they wish, the poor wee baby had no choice in the matter.

Joy Division wrote:You have a daughter Andy...and let's say she is my daughters age..15

What would you think if she strolled through the door with a bloke of 50 years old , saying ...Dad, I'd like you to meet my new boyfriend?..

Is he black or white JD?

Does he have a job or is he a scrounger?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:You have a daughter Andy...and let's say she is my daughters age..15

What would you think if she strolled through the door with a bloke of 50 years old , saying ...Dad, I'd like you to meet my new boyfriend?..

Is he black or white JD?

Does he have a job or is he a scrounger?

That's not want I'm asking you Andy...

The bloke is 50, so what do you think?

So are you saying you would be happy enough to let her date him as long as he had money behind him?

Is that what your saying Andy?

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:You have a daughter Andy...and let's say she is my daughters age..15

What would you think if she strolled through the door with a bloke of 50 years old , saying ...Dad, I'd like you to meet my new boyfriend?..

Is he black or white JD?

Does he have a job or is he a scrounger?

That's not want I'm asking you Andy...

The bloke is 50, so what do you think?

So are you saying you would be happy enough to let her date him as long as he had money behind him?

Is that what your saying Andy?

Depends how much money, Like Murdoch money    probably, I mean to be honest    it's probably the best cash cow of her life     

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree with you,we need laws to safe guard children of course.A  13 year old girl may have the physical characteristics of a woman physically but mentally she might not be ready to have  sexual relations so of course we need an age of consent.

Personally I would lower it to 15,that is just my view.

But no I do not agree with your final point. An 11 year old is simply too young and will not display enough signs of physical maturity to counteract the fact she is a child with the face of an 11 year old. A man who has 'normal hetero' desires will not be attracted to an 11 year old.

Everyone tends to go a bit nutty where children are involved which is understandable.What needs to be kept in mind is that paedophiles have no interest in children going through puberty,teenagers etc.They are attracted to the pre pubescent form,that is the whole point.If a man is interested in the form of  a 14 year old he is surely immoral but certainly not a paedophile.

Well that obviously isn't true - if as you say a 14 year old is a woman, physically, and the man is interested in the form - that's ok.

If he acts upon it physically, towards her, that's illegal.

Well yes it is immoral because he's acting on his desires only and not considering whether she is ready yet or not mentally.

I said earlier alot of men are wrongly demonised for finding 14 year old's attractive( which I think can be considered a natural impulse) but that doesn't mean he should act upon his desire and just have sex with her.

That in my view is irresponsible and yes,immoral.I was arguing against the fact such men are also considered paedophiles by the media when they are not.

FluffyBunny wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Well that obviously isn't true - if as you say a 14 year old is a woman, physically, and the man is interested in the form - that's ok.

If he acts upon it physically, towards her, that's illegal.

Well yes it is immoral because he's acting on his desires only and not considering whether she is ready yet or not mentally.

I said earlier alot of men are wrongly demonised for finding 14 year old's attractive( which I think can be considered a natural impulse) but that doesn't mean he should act upon his desire and just have sex with her.

That in my view is irresponsible and yes,immoral.I was arguing against the fact such men are also considered paedophiles by the media when they are not.

Ok ok you've changed your wording now, which is fine.

At first you said interested in the form.

I responded "if he acts upon it" - which i think you meant?

Of course if he acts upon it, it isn't just illegal, but as you say, immoral (by todays standards).

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Well yes it is immoral because he's acting on his desires only and not considering whether she is ready yet or not mentally.

I said earlier alot of men are wrongly demonised for finding 14 year old's attractive( which I think can be considered a natural impulse) but that doesn't mean he should act upon his desire and just have sex with her.

That in my view is irresponsible and yes,immoral.I was arguing against the fact such men are also considered paedophiles by the media when they are not.

Ok ok you've changed your wording now, which is fine.

At first you said interested in the form.

I responded "if he acts upon it" - which i think you meant?

Of course if he acts upon it, it isn't just illegal, but as you say, immoral (by todays standards).

Yes that is what I meant:oops: 

I am going to have some coffee and return when I can formulate a coherent sentence   

FluffyBunny wrote:

harrymuffin wrote:

What does it say about a man or woman that wants to watch an 8 month old infant being sexually abused?  Or watching a 2 and 3 year old made to do things to each other for these sick monsters pleasure?  

I personally would rather see scum like that locked up, than walking the streets and eventually acting on their desire.

As far as men ogling young girls.  I blame a lot of that on the media.  Vogue uses 8 year old girls for their covers or in adverts, dressed scantily, wearing Manolo Blahniks and face full of harsh make up.  It's disgusting.

They make thong panties for 2 year olds.  Bra sets for 4 year olds.  And these ignorant parents buy into this.  Parents that let their little girls cover their faces in 5 inches of make up at the age of 10 and as I said, dress as though they're 22.

These pageants for toddlers are nothing more than a paedophiles paradise.

I agree with alot of what you say.

But maybe I'm being naive but I thought some individuals who have never abused a child but had urges wanted to be saved from themselves and their own disturbed desires.

I saw a programme where one sex offender wanted to be castrated and intended to do it themselves.

Do you believe a man with these disgusting preferences that has never offended should be put in prison for life just in case he does?

I want someone to answer this question please.

FluffyBunny wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ok ok you've changed your wording now, which is fine.

At first you said interested in the form.

I responded "if he acts upon it" - which i think you meant?

Of course if he acts upon it, it isn't just illegal, but as you say, immoral (by todays standards).

Yes that is what I meant:oops: 

I am going to have some coffee and return when I can formulate a coherent sentence   

No no, simple thing - i noticed and thought that's what you meant - was just confirming.

FluffyBunny wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree with alot of what you say.

But maybe I'm being naive but I thought some individuals who have never abused a child but had urges wanted to be saved from themselves and their own disturbed desires.

I saw a programme where one sex offender wanted to be castrated and intended to do it themselves.

Do you believe a man with these disgusting preferences that has never offended should be put in prison for life just in case he does?

I want someone to answer this question please.

Let me understand what you're saying. If a man/woman only watches child pornography, that's ok? Because she/he hasn't physically touched that child.

In my view, even watching it is a huge offense and you should do a long jail sentence for it and then be constantly monitored.

Wayne Dumond, a convicted rapist who had been castrated more than a decade earlier in what he claimed was a violent attack. After Dumond was released from prison in 1999, he went on to rape and murder at least one woman, and maybe two. How can someone who's been castrated still commit rape?

He can still have an erection. In general, castrated men experience a much-diminished sex drive, because their bodies have very low levels of the male hormone testosterone. This lowers the frequency, strength, and duration of erections, and can cause hot flashes, vertigo, loss of body hair, and breast growth. But depending on the individual, it may be possible for him to become aroused and even to ejaculate, although his erection may be modest and there won't be any sperm in his semen. Even if a castrated man can't maintain an erection, he can temporarily reverse the effect by taking testosterone. Also, rapists aren't necessarily driven by sexual desire; a lower sex drive won't prevent attacks that are motivated by a desire for power.

FluffyBunny wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I agree with alot of what you say.

But maybe I'm being naive but I thought some individuals who have never abused a child but had urges wanted to be saved from themselves and their own disturbed desires.

I saw a programme where one sex offender wanted to be castrated and intended to do it themselves.

Do you believe a man with these disgusting preferences that has never offended should be put in prison for life just in case he does?

I want someone to answer this question please.

How do you know who has disgusting preferences?

Oh, sorry, didge knows - he can tell by your posts    


Sorry - i'm singling one person out there - Sassy and Benji can tell too.

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I want someone to answer this question please.

How do you know who has disgusting preferences?

Oh, sorry, didge knows - he can tell by your posts    


Sorry - i'm singling one person out there - Sassy and Benji can tell too.

My disgusting preferences are my own business