Have You Ever Accessed CP Knowingly or Unknowingly? Take the CP Test Today!

SHI: OK, so just to clarify things one last time. You know I really must dot the i’s and cross the t’s, otherwise I can’t ease my mind. A very simple question really. Simply answer whether I am guilty or not guilty of CP in the following situations. OK?

A) I I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl on an Internet browser/mobile app. But, it does not display her vagina. I do not immediately close the browser.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

B) Same thing as above but I save the pic on my computer/phone. Not due to pornographic intent but only because I feel it’s “cute”.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

C) I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl but it displays her vagina. I immediately shut down the browser and erase all my cookies.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

D) Same as above. But, I look at the pics with keen interest and even save it on my PC/mobile.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

E) I accidentally see the pic of a 12-year old boy flashing his penis. Maybe I save the pic on my computer because it’s funny. Reminds me of my own 12-year old self.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

F) I accidentally see the nude pic of a 7-year old girl along with her vagina. But, I have no negative intention. I’d treat her like it’s my daughter. It is just a child after all. I save the pic on my computer.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Correct answers only, please. To clarify, I’m not a pedophile. These are hypothetical questions. I strongly believe that children below 16 years should not be disturbed or accosted by adults. They should be left alone to enjoy their childhoods.

The question is at what point does one draw the line?

If you’re turned on by teenage girls, you’re not a pedophile anyway.  There’s only one word for men who are turned on by teenage girls: normal! If you are a man and teenage girls don’t turn you on, there’s two possibilities: You’re either gay or you’re dead.

All these living men who claim that teenage girls don’t turn them on and that all men turned on by teenage girls are pedophiles are simply faggots! They’re gay.  They’re homosexuals. They put men’s cocks in their mouths and suck on them until the cocks spurt cum down their fag throats. They take men’s hard cocks up their anuses until they ejaculate.

I mean you can argue if a man who does that is a man, but I don’t think any man who sucks on penises and lets penises penetrate his anus is not much of a man. Not any man I would want to know anyway! Real men don’t suck cocks! Real men don’t take cock up the ass! I mean is that point even open for debate?

Even if little girls turn you on, you’re not abnormal. 90% of adult men are aroused by preteen girls. 24% of all men are aroused by preteen girls as much as they are aroused by mature females.

In  other words, 24% of all men score “pedophilic” in the lab. Do you understand now why I don’t care if some guy gets turned on by little girls? I mean if that’s the case, he’s almost normal.

So if you are a man, I don’t really care if little girls turn you on. I am a lot more interested if little girls turn you on and mature females do not: that means you are a pedophile.  There’s no shame in being a biological pedophile, but I think it is cause for concern in a sense because I think you are at risk of committing a sex crime.

Keep in mind that I have done actual counseling with pedophilic men who had no attraction to mature adults and were only attracted to minors. I  liked both of them a lot, and I thought they were great people. Neither had offended. One man was so wracked with guilt that he was going  to cut his penis off in order not put kids at risk – that’s how deeply wrong he felt messing with kids was. He kept saying over and over, “I cannot hurt a kid…”

People have the wrong idea about pedophiles. However, I do think that all actual pedophiles should be in some sort of therapy designed to keep them from offending. Either that or put them all on an island where everyone is over 18. Why is that such a bad idea? I really like that idea.

I will go over  your hypothetical  scenarios:

A) I I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl on an Internet browser/mobile app. But, it does not display her vagina. I do not immediately close the browser.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Not guilty. There’s no CP.

B) Same thing as above but I save the pic on my computer/phone. Not due to pornographic intent but only because I feel it’s “cute”.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Same thing. There’s no CP.

C) I stumble upon the nude pics of a 12-year old girl but it displays her vagina. I immediately shut down the browser and erase all my cookies.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY’

You stumbled upon it so you’re not guilty.

D) Same as above. But, I look at the pics with keen interest and even save it on my PC/mobile.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Unfortunately, let’s put it this way: you now have CP on your drive. I seriously request that you get that crap off your drive right now.

E) I accidentally see the pic of a 12-year old boy flashing his penis. Maybe I save the pic on my computer because it’s funny. Reminds me of my own 12-year old self.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

I don’t know if that’s illegal or not. If it was put up there as CP, then it might be illegal. If it’s put up there for some other reason, probably not. But I don’t know much about CP with males because I’m not into males. I only like females. Hell with males ha ha.

F) I accidentally see the nude pic of a 7-year old girl along with her vagina. But, I have no negative intention. I’d treat her like it’s my daughter. It is just a child after all. I save the pic on my computer.

GUILTY — NOT GUILTY

Yeah, you now have CP on your drive. I don’t care if you saved it because it reminds you of your daughter. Get it off your drive right now.

Over 100 People Have Reported Me to the Police for Sex Crimes, Including Child Pornography and Murder

A lot of my haters reported me to the police, and a lot of people tried to get me arrested. You wonder why I hate moralfags and sanctimonious scum so much? You wonder why I hate cops?

50 people called the police and turned me in as a suspect in the brutal torture murders of two young teenage girls, ages 13 and 14. I even had a damned detective call me up and question me about the case. He apparently decided that I had nothing to do with the case.

Many others called the police and reported me as a “pedophile.” That’s not a crime.

Many of them said I had child porn on my drive and said police should raid my residence to find it. Supposedly my posts proved that I was a “pedophile” and therefore, they assumed that I collected CP.

I don’t collect any “child porn” involving little girl children because I have no interest in such things. I also think it is disgusting and grotesque. Why would I have it on my drive?

Of course, I have a ton of porn on this drive. A lot of it is nudes that were sent to me by various females all over the world. I certainly hope they were all over 18. I would never store any nudes by any underage teenage girls on my drive. I don’t want that bullshit on my drive.

Have I seen it? Of course I have. Assuming it was what it was said to be. But it’s nothing special. There’s nothing interesting about it. I’ve seen these photos on webpages, but like Hell I am downloading that and putting that crap on my drive. Hell no.

NSFW: Some Women Actually Enjoyed Getting Molested As Girls

NSFW!

Warning: This post contains a lot of highly disturbing material adults having sex minors, including the child molestation of little girls. If you find this sort of thing disturbing and upsetting, then don’t read. If you do read don’t come back and tell what a horrible person I am for writing about this sort of thing.

Also, a caveat: I am not saying it is a good thing for men to molest girls when they are young. Clearly, many girls are harmed by this practice. In quite a few cases, they get over it quickly, but one can argue that there was still harm. If someone robs me and I get over my trauma soon enough, but I still got harmed, let’s face it. And many girls are harmed long term by being molested, and in quite a few cases, the damage lingers into adulthood.

Some of the sequelae of getting molested are Borderline Personality Disorder, involved in the sex trade, masochism, addiction to abusive men, low to zero desire for sex, difficulty in maintaining sexual relationships, and PTSD.  There may be others but these are the only ones I can think of. Some studies have even visually mapped this damage on brain scans.

Now it’s quite obvious that women who get molested vary. Many suffer long term damage, but for many others, the damage is short term. An unknown group of others actually regard the experience as positive.

For those who regard the experience as positive, the sequelae are nonetheless similar to those who got harmed: involved in the sex trade, masochism or a desire for abusive sex, addiction to older men, and the most prominent of all – promiscuity, often extreme promiscuity.

It’s not PC to say that some women liked it and were not harmed at all, but that’s the science, so that’s the conclusion that we need to go with. Such outcomes may have discussed in the famous paper by Judith Reiner et al around 1999 which said that harm from molestation stemmed whether it was consensual or not.

Girls who went along with and agreed to it experienced short term or no harm at all. Those who were coerced (the majority) often experienced long term harm. Pedophiles have been using  this study to justify the molestation of children, which was to be expected. Nevertheless, the science is the science and we must support the truth in all cases, which by the way is an Alt Left position.

The fact that even many women who were harmed nevertheless enjoyed the sex is well-known and this is part of the therapy of the problem.

I knew one woman who was molested at age 8 and got over it. However she said the experience was confusing because it felt good but it was wrong.

Girls and later women wrestle with this internal contradiction. Many of those seriously harmed often experience extreme guilt over the fact that they felt pleasure in being molested. This is one of the main issues that needs to be addressed in  any therapy.

Any man who intends to molest a girl, regardless of the legality of the matter, ought to think of the consequences for the girl. That girl may well be harmed very long-term, for decades or maybe for life. In that sense it is like stealing from her, beating her up, or out and out raping her. Maybe you should think twice about that.

Besides, if you get caught, your life will be pretty much ruined. If you go to jail or prison, you will be in serious danger there and may well be attacked or possibly even killed. You will be on the Sex Offender List for the rest of your life with all the consequences that flow from that. I would say think about it.

This nonsense has been going on too long. Earlier we could plead innocence of cultural values, but now we know better.

The practice is widespread across cultures and is very common even in some primitive tribes in places like Australia and New Guinea. It was very common in ancient Rome and among the poor in  the West during the 18th and  19th centuries when it was associated with crowded conditions. Even today in India, 53% of Indian women get molested as girls.

My own position is that we men have been having sex with those little girls forever now. Isn’t about time that we knocked it off! It’s a human rights issue.

Some women who were molested as girls found the experience positive. Not only were they not harmed but they claimed it was positive and beneficial.

I know it goes against everything you heard, but it’s true.

Some molesters are simply extreme libertines or trysexuals. They have no particular interest in kids and instead are just the types who “try anything” sexually.

I have talked to a couple of women who were raised in “loving families.”

I talked to one who spent half the year in Hong Kong and the other half in the Caribbean and started having sex with her mother and stepfather at age 6. This continued all through teenage years when she was known as the blow job queen at the local junior high (White boys only).

She was a Black woman with a White man fetish, as her stepfather was White, and her Mom was Black. She continued to have sex with her stepfather and maybe Mom to this very day. These “pedo families” are fairly common. It was all a big secret, and she didn’t want to give me too much information, as she was worried I might go to the police and get the mother and stepfather in trouble.

I also talked to an 18 year old girl from the US Northeast who was in one of these families. I guess it was the cousins and the uncles or just the males in the family. They started having sex with her at age 8. She had two sisters, one 14 and another…I forget…9? Both of the girls were also having sex with each other and with the males. It  was all a big secret. I am not sure if any of these men were actual pedophiles or not.

I talked to a British woman age 24 who started getting molested by her uncle at age 9. They apparently “trained” her to be a total slut. From age 13-on she regularly had sex with the uncle and his older man friends, including gangbangs with groups of these older men. She told me about one gangbang when she was 13. They made her recite some line from “Harry Potter” when they came on her.

At some point she got really fucked up about all this as is typical, but then she decided that if this happened, I may as well make the best of it and learn to enjoy it and label it is a positive experience.

She now had a serious older man fetish, and she regularly has sex with older men in hotel rooms, etc. Other than that, her sexual interests were pretty normal.

These older men who had sex with her as a teen took a ton of photos and videos of her getting gangbanged and whatnot. She admitted that it would turn her on to see this stuff and she had been asking around the underground community to try to find the videos of herself, if they ever got distributed that is.

She said people had sent her a bunch of teenage girl CP, and she had looked at it but didn’t find any of herself. She wasn’t really worried about getting caught.

She called me “Mister” and had sort of a strange robotic, emotionless way about her. I saw her pic and she is really hot. Apparently neither her uncle nor the other older men were pedophiles.

I met another woman about 40 who had grown up in one of these “sex families,” and she thought it was a very positive experience. Her father had started having sex with her at age 5. Her sexual interests were pretty normal. Her father was apparently not a pedophile.

I met an 18 year old girl college student from the Midwest who worked as a stripper. She was really nice but she didn’t talk all that much. Her uncle raped her when she was 12.

After that he turned her into some sort of a total sex slave. He trained her to deep throat, and she was also a toilet slave (yuck). She liked some one aspect the latter but not the other part of it.

He tied her to the bed all day when he was gone and put diapers on her if she pissed or shit when she was tied up. He also made her wear diapers when they went out. That’s all pretty gross to me, but she told me that now she had a serious diaper fetish as a result.

He also stuck a dildo her in mouth and taped it in, and she would have to have this thing in her throat all day. This was deep throat training. I asked her if she vomited but she said if that thing is in your throat you can’t puke, which is probably correct. This was all to train her to deep throat.

He also made her have sex with another 12 year old girl at age 12. I asked her why she continued this abusive activity for years, and she said she felt she did not have a choice, and she thought he owned her, which I guess is what he told her.

The uncle also took a ton of photos and film. He got caught when she was 17, and after a trial was sentenced to a long prison term. I asked her what she thought of that, and she had no opinion. All of the photos and videos were confiscated, and there was a ton of it.

Mom was a severe alcoholic and the girl had a lock on her door as a teenage girl to keep the raging mother from coming in and beating her. I guess the mother either allowed the sex with the uncle to happen or she was too wasted to care. The uncle was not a pedophile at all, as he started having sex with her at age 12 and continued til age 17.

She was a total submissive into perverted, abusive sex involving degradation, humiliation, etc. She wanted to be dominated or dommed big-time. I actually liked her and thought she was a good person. She was vaguely bisexual but mostly into men.

I met another who was as Berber woman from Northeastern Mali. Her Dad had started having sex with her at age 9. She and her father were in love. She was 23 years old now and still having sex with the father.

The father pimped her out as a prostitute, and this is what she did all day – got fucked by men. She was into some sort of male worship and said she was put on this Earth to serve and be a slave to men, and she didn’t want any pleasure herself. She was also heavy into degrading sex – the more degrading, the better.

She had sex with women but considered herself straight because she got no pleasure from it. Some of the johns would bring in a girl or a woman and pay for a lesbian show. She told me that she had been “cut” via genital mutilation, and she said all the girls there got cut this way.

I argued that this was bad, and she was very defensive of it and thought it was great because she thought females should just be slaves to and serve men and not get any pleasure themselves.

She was a rather curt and unfriendly person with a list of 100 rules about stuff you could not talk to her about or what sort of tone you had to have with her. She was pretty arrogant about this and quit talking to me after I complained. She was bitchy, difficult, curt, short, and in a chronically annoyed mood.

She thought she was better than other people – she had some narcissism. She got a college education in London and then went back to Mali. She said it was a difficult neighborhood around there with Al Qaeda Islamist types out and about.

She most of these people were apolitical. There were all sorts of warlords and organized crime/smuggler types who were in the area, and these Al Qaeda guys were just another group of gangsters and warlords and really had no particular political or even religious philosophy. Her father was not a pedophile.

Alt Left: The “White Men Are Pedophiles” Bullshit

Roy: An Asian confessed the pedo market in Asia is because Asian men like very young girls. Mestizo Mexicans have told me they only like very young-looking White girls. An African-American told me he was a rapist because he loves the surprised look on their White faces.

Europe has a history of marrying young, but this has changed in modern times. White Western American men are the only ones I’ve met on the “she looks too young for me” trip. A small group of White Americans are even “old milfs only” types. The biggest White pedos I’ve seen are wiggers and mentally handicapped in some way. Seems as though the New Europeans are the leaders of anti-pedo culture.

This is what I thought. This whole White pedos thing is a huge lie. Hispanics are bigger child molesters than we are, and Asian men have long been known as molesters. Sure Black men prey on White women, but they rape 5X more Black women than White women.

Keep in mind that 80% of child molestation is done by non-pedophilic molesters. Sexually, they are not that different from you or me. They have no special attraction to little girls. These men are just criminals who prey on little girls because they are defenseless and an easy target.

Alt Left: You Have No Idea the Sheer Volume of Vague, Nonsensical or Chickenshit Laws We Have

You would not believe how many laws, even crazy, insane, stupid, and vague laws there are out there. Laws so vague that you have no idea how not to break that law. Where you have no idea if you are breaking it or not. Where you have no idea what’s permissible behavior and what’s not permissible behavior.

Furthermore, with the sheer volume of laws, literally mountains of printed paper out there, no human can keep up with all of them.

Every week I learn of some stupid chickenshit law that I could probably go down on myself if I was so inclined. “Conspiracy to be an agent of a foreign power.” I just learned of that one today. What the Hell does that even mean? What am I permitted to do? What am I not allowed to do? No one knows!

“Harassment” is another one. What’s that? How do I know if I am harassing someone? What does harassment even mean? It could mean anything.

“Annoying or molesting a child” – the anti-grooming law. Literally you can go down on  this law for simply talking to anyone underage. A guy went down on it for a 15 minute conversation in a Pet Mart. I have no idea what they discussed.

“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” Even when a girl is perfectly legal, above the age of consent, they can still get you on contributing to delinquency if her parents get mad. Isn’t that stupid?

And if the age of consent in my state is 18, and I go to a state where the age of consent is 16 and have sex with a 17 year old girl, I committed committed the crime of “crossing state lines to assault a minor” or some BS. The age of consent in my state literally follows me around everywhere I go!

And say the age of consent is whatever in my state but I go to a foreign country where the age of consent is 15 and I live there for a while. I hook up with a 17 year old girl and I go down on sexual assault of a minor or some crap. That’s because when you leave the country, US laws continue to follow you everywhere you go like a nagging wife that won’t let go. And federal law puts the age of consent at 18.

So if you live in a state where the age of consent is 16, you can hook up with a 16 year old girl, but you leave the country and go to someplace where the age of consent is 12 and hook up with a 16 year old girl, and you committed sexual assault of a minor. These laws were put it to stop overseas pedophiles who were traveling to foreign lands where the age of consent was 12 or effectively nonexistent and molesting little children of both sexes, often for years on end. Look how they are being abused.

Suppose the age of consent is 16 in a state. You hook up with a 16 year old girl. Everything’s kosher. But now you take a picture of her naked or she sends you nudes on her phone like every woman I go out with nowadays does anyway. Now  you are “manufacturing child pornography” and “receiving child pornography.”

Suppose a 16 year old girl takes a picture of her own self and  keeps it on her phone. If the cops find it, she’s going down on “manufacturing child pornography” for taking a damned selfie.

If I engage in monetary transactions with anyone in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, or Cuba I can be arrested and look at serious jail time. I have no idea what sort of transactions are allowed if any and which are not allowed. You got me.

You can literally be arrested for traveling from the US to Cuba or North Korea. It is actually against the law to visit those countries as a tourist!

If you buy a gun you have to sign a statement that you don’t use illegal drugs. Well Hell, everyone uses illegal drugs. It’s actually normal to use dope and get high. And if you own a gun and happen to be using any illegal drugs during the time you owned that gun or lie on that form, you can be charged and serve 20 years in prison.

If you loan someone your gun for target practice and he uses it to commit a crime, you can go down for accessory to murder. That’s crazy. That’s like I loan someone my car and he kills someone and I go down on vehicular homicide.

Lie on a loan application? So what. Everyone does that. And anyway, it’s between you and the bank, right? Let the bank sue you. It’s no business of the state’s. But you can do serious time for this chickenshit offense.

You work for a company and you learn some of their trade secrets, whatever the Hell that even means. You quit and go work for some other company and you divulge some of the undefined trade secrets of your previous employer. You are looking at serious time now.

But what business is this of the state’s? It’s between you and the employer you violated the contract of, right?  And I don’t see why that contract should follow you around through the rest of your life after you quit the company. I mean while you still work there, fine. But after you leave? Twenty years down the road? Get real.

Did you realize that lying to a police officer is a crime? No one ever goes down on it because everyone lies to cops, especially criminals. I mean what do you expect them to do, tell the truth? I wouldn’t. Why should I? Only the stupidest criminal would tell the truth to a cop and get himself in trouble. No one ever goes down on it because obviously everyone lies to cops, but the law’s still there.

Lying in court is illegal. This is preposterous because everyone knows that people lie in court all the time. Most criminal defendants who plead innocent and go to trial lie on the stand. People lie on the stand all day, every day, year in and year out in this country. Everyone knows this guy is up there lying his fool head off. He’s often got his lawyer helping him lie like a rug.

Really 95% of the people who plead guilty should go down on perjury, but almost no one ever does. Perjury is a chickenshit offense that is only used on political white collar crimes such as we are seeing with this Russia affair.

Did you know it’s illegal to lie to Congress? Why? Why should I tell the truth to those psychopathic lowlifes? They’re not deserving of my truthful statements. I’d lie to them just to show them how much I hate them.

Did you know it’s illegal to lie to a Grand Jury? Why? Who the Hell are they? A bunch of citizen-cops? Why do I have to tell the truth to them? The Hell with them.

Pedophilia: Orientation or Paraphilia?

The best science indicates that pedophilia is probably best seen as an orientation and not a paraphilia. It acts more like an orientation than a paraphilia in some ways. True pedophiles can’t help it. And they can’t be cured. I have worked with a couple of pedophile clients, and I liked both of them a lot. Neither was offending with children. One worried so badly that he might hurt a child that he was suicidal. I thought he was a good person to care about others so much that he felt that way.
As long as they are not offending, I am ok with them. There are groups called Virtuous Pedophiles set up now of pedophiles who have pledged not to offend. This should be encouraged. The more we hate and threaten them, the more likely they are to offend.
Or we could just put them all on an island where everyone is over 18.
In a long-term study, 50% of released pedophiles were able to go 25 years without offending, so large numbers of them can keep from offending for a long time.
Adult pedophiles need to get with a kind therapist who can work closely with them to keep them from offending. Frequency of sessions could vary.
Anyway, 80% of child molesters aren’t even pedophiles at all. They’re just criminals. They’re not attracted to kids at all or no more so than any other man. They’re attracted to mature females for the most part.

The Definitions 99% of the Population Gets Wrong: Pedophilia and Hebephilia

Jynxi: Pedophilia has to prepubescent children. I don’t think these girls qualify as ten year olds. However, the correct term might be hebephilia, a attraction to pubescent young adolescent children. I think the public school teachers union has all the information you need.

I am making fun of all the dangerous idiots out there, almost all of whom are women, who insist that any man who is attracted to any teenage girl is a pedophile. Yeah, these dumb bitches actually believe this!
Women in power won’t rule based on logic because females are simply not logical creatures. It’s men who are logical ones. Women in power will rule based on their feels, which is a bad idea in general and especially for men, at whom most of these women’s persecution will be aimed. Women can help us men run things. I do not object to that. I just don’t want them running things. It’s not a problem. Each gender has its roles. Women can’t do everything.
Hebephilia is not appropriate here either, and the definition is incorrect. Hebephilia is not attraction to pubescent females, otherwise all men would be hebephiles because all men are attracted to pubescent girls. Instead it is a preference for pubescent girls to the point of fixation to where they are simply not attracted at all to mature females. They are not a lot different from pedophiles, but they think they are superior to the pedos.
I have lurked on one of their 8chan boards, and hebephiles are weird. For instance, people would post a photo of a 16 year old girl, and they would all start screaming, “Ew gross! No grandmas!” Yeah, they actually believe that. 16 year old girls are disgusting Grandmas to these guys. That’s almost as bad as the pedos who think even pubescent females are too old.
I happen to think hebephilia is a disorder, but there was a big debate around Hebephilia in the latest DSM-5, and the consensus was that Hebephilia not only was not a mental illness, it wasn’t even abnormal! Also they were worried that making it a mental illness would allow the authorities to lock up some guy who screws a 14 year old forever on preventive detention bullshit, which I think is unconstitutional.
 

Against Preventive Detention: It's Not Against the Law to Be Dangerous

You cannot lock people up for “Dangerousness.” It’s not a crime to be dangerous. People can be as dangerous as they want to within certain limits. It’s a free country and you are free to be as dangerous as you want to be. People aren’t criminals until the commit a crime. If we want to lock someone up, we have to wait until they commit a crime first. It’s seems awful, but it’s only fair, don’t you think? Why not lock me up because I might rob a bank some day. After all, I have thought about it before.
There are many men now locked up on the charge of Dangerousness because of new laws that allow sex offenders, and sex offenders only mind you, to be imprisoned on preventive detention forever all because they have a mental disorder that supposedly makes them dangerous.
This is a grotesque misuse of the laws locking up the Criminally Insane. Those people need to be legitimately crazy, generally speaking psychotic, and they generally need to have a chronic psychotic disorder that won’t get better, to be locked away as Dangerous Due to Insanity. I have no qualms with locking up completely insane people who have also committed serious crimes and have an untreatable mental illness that makes them an out and out menace to society. They don’t have the faintest idea what they are doing most of the time, and that combined with a propensity for violent crime means that people like that have to be locked up at least until they are stabilized.
So because we were locking up the psychotically violent criminals in preventive detention (which is rational), the authorities opened up the damned DSM and noted that the DSM had made the error of labeling certain paraphilias as mental disorders, which they probably are not.
How does merely having a paraphilia make you nuts? Some guy has foot fetish. No one knows about it other than some woman who might sleep with him. Otherwise he’s completely normal. Show me how this man is crazy. I can’t see it.
So they started diagnosing a number of sex offenders with paraphilias as a way to keep them locked up forever even after they had served their full term in prison and had paid their debt to society!
These “Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders” being locked away forever because they might maybe commit a crime if they are released are what boils down to thought criminals being prosecuted for thought crimes.
People allow it because they hate pedos so much, but now that people have said it’s OK to lock people away forever on preventive detention on the basis of dangerousness, what’s preventing the authorities from coming out and arresting you for “Dangerousness?” What’s preventive the expansion of these crazy Dangerousness laws? Nothing. People are idiots. They allowed their hatred for pedos to cloud their judgement, and now they have set themselves up for some very nasty preventive detention nonsense. That 5-4 Supreme Court case that legalized this preventive detention nonsense was one of the worst cases ever. Scalia wrote the final opinion, so that ought to tell you something.

Tony Perkins Is an Anti-Gay Bigot, But a Lot of the Things He Says about Homosexuality Are True

I don’t have a high opinion of this reactionary idiot Tony Perkins. While the label of bigot and hater seems correct about him, unfortunately a number of things he says about homosexuality are flat out true. Others are ugly opinions, exaggerations, silliness, or untruths.
The dossier against Perkins can be found here at the site of one of the worst SJW organizations out there, the toxic and cancerous Southern Poverty Law Center. Let’s look at the charges:

contending that gay rights advocates intend to round up Christians in “boxcars.”

False. OK, that’s fanaticism.
But sometimes I wonder what sort of SJW dictatorship our SJW commissar overlords would have in store for us if they ever seized power. Looking at how hate-filled, vindictive, and out and out vicious your typical gay rights homosexual is nowadays, it’s not unreasonable to fear all sorts of bad things from these maniacs.
To give you an example, these gay activists absolutely hate me although I have supported gay rights since the 1980’s when it was dangerous to do so. That’s a good 35 years. And I work on their political campaigns, though I should probably quit based on how they treat me.
In order to be a proper gay rights ally and avoid being a homophobe, the goalposts have now been moved to positions that are so far beyond the endzone that most straight men would qualify as homophobes by default simply for having the normal opinions that straight men have towards male homosexuality (hint: they have a very low opinion of it).

“What most people either don’t realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion — the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn’t a judicial or economic code — but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment.”
— FRC email, December 2015

True. That’s probably about right, sorry.

“Those who practice Islam in its entirety, it’s not just a religion. It’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system, and it is a military – a military system. And it is – it has Shariah law that you’ve heard about and those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy. So we have to be very clear about our laws and restrain those things that would harm the whole. We are a nation – let me be very clear about this. We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.”
Washington Watch radio show, September 2014

Mostly true. He’s wrong as usual about the Founding Fathers, who were more deists than anything else, but this is standard fundie nonsense.
The rest about Islam is more or less 100% fact.

“The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. … It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”
—FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

False. The It Gets Better videos are not part of a project to recruit kids into the gay lifestyle. I doubt if they are trying to tell kids homosexuality is ok either. These videos are aimed at gay teenagers who are distraught, depressed, and have a high attempted suicide rate, showing them that no matter how much they are suffering now, things will get better as they get older.
It’s probably not true that gays cannot turn straights gay, but many straight women have chosen a bisexual orientation, and many straight men have chosen to engage in bisexual behavior, with more and more doing this all the time. And while you can’t turn straight people gay, that doesn’t stop gay and bisexual men from trying.
I can’t count how many times they have tried to seduce me, and they’ve done it to a lot of my friends too. Actually bisexual men are far worse about this because I don’t have much to do with gay men, and bisexual men are everywhere running about in typical straight society. They can get pretty verbally coercive and cajoling about trying to get you to join in their faggy fun too. You need to stop talking to them because they will never stop trying to cajole you into their faggy fun and games.

“Those who understand the homosexual community – the activists – they’re very aggressive, they’re – everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.”
—Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

True. This is actually true. Gay activists are out and out ugly. In fact, I am starting hate gay men (though I should not feel that way, I know) due to so many nasty and ugly interactions with them. I will continue to support them politically of course, but the less I deal with them otherwise, the better. Gay men nowadays are the worst SJW’s of them all, like SJW’s on steroids.
False. But I really doubt if homosexuality is going to destroy the country. That’s a bit much.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”
— FRC website, 2010

True. This is a bit vicious, but gay men are vastly overrepresented among pedophiles. 35% of child molestations are molestations of boys by men. Almost all of these men are homosexual pedophiles.
False. But saying that pedophilia is a gay problem is just wrong. And it’s vicious.

The marriage debate “is literally about the entire culture: it’s about the rule of law, it’s about the country, it’s about our future, it’s about redefining the curriculum in our schools, it’s about driving a wedge between parent and child, it’s about the loss of religious freedom, it’s about the inability to be who we are as a people.”
— The Janet Mefford Show, May 22, 2014

False. None of this is true, but I can see why these Christians are upset about it. They say it goes against their religion. Well, OK. So how do you expect them to act?

Part of the FRC’s strategy is to tout the false claim that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

True. Yes, and the APA is flat out wrong and is disregarding all of the evidence of psychological “science” on this issue. You wonder why people say the social science are not sciences. Well, look no further. Actually gay men are 12 times more likely to molest children than straight men are.
Nevertheless, most gay men are obviously not pedophiles.

As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.

False. I do not think it is fair to say that homosexuals pose a risk to our children. “Keep the faggots away from our kids!” seems like a mean and unnecessary thing to say.

In late 2010, Perkins held a webcast to discuss the dire consequences of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Dubious statistics from a poll commissioned by the FRC and the Center for Security Policy – which was named an anti-Muslim hate group in 2015 – were used during the webcast.
The webcast also mentioned the FRC report, Mission Compromised, written by retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, the FRC’s senior fellow for national security. The report contended that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would undermine morale and discipline and infringe on the religious freedom of military chaplains, who would be forced to accept homosexuality and would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about it.
In addition, Maginnis predicted that heterosexual service members would be forced to take “sensitivity classes” that promote the “homosexual lifestyle.” He added: “Homosexual activists seek to force the U.S. military to embrace their radical views and sexual conduct, no matter the consequences for combat effectiveness.”

False. I believe that gays are now serving openly in the US military, and this has not affected combat effectiveness like the howlers predicted.

On Oct. 11, 2010, The Washington Post published a commentary by Perkins in which he repeated his argument that anti-bullying policies are not really intended to protect students. “Homosexual activist groups like GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network] … are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.”

Half true. Sadly, this is correct. Gay activists are indeed using the anti-bullying push to promote tolerance of homosexuals, to redefine the family, and worse, to promote out and out affirmation of homosexuality.
In fact, I would argue that it goes far beyond that, and that presently gay rights activists are promoting the open celebration of homosexuality. As a straight man, I fail to see why I should jump up and down and cheer for homosexuality. What’s so great about it? Who needs it? If it disappeared from the planet tomorrow, would that be a bad thing? It probably would not, as homosexuality offers zero benefits to society while causing a long list of societal problems.
However, obviously the anti-bullying movement is also designed to protect gay students.

In 2013, Perkins claimed on CNN that allowing gay people into the Boy Scouts would put children in danger of sexual assault. When pressed by the CNN host, Perkins again resorted to the FRC’s stock claim, as Perkins once put it, that pedophilia “is a homosexual problem.” “They [Boy Scouts] are trying to create an environment that is protective of children,” he said. “This [allowing LGBT Scouts and Scout leaders] doesn’t make it more protective. There is a disproportionate number of male on boy – when we get on pedophilia, male on boy is a higher incident rate of that.”

True. Well, of course letting gay men by scoutmasters puts boys at increased risk of molestation. Isn’t that obvious? There have been plenty of closeted gay men who were scoutmasters in the past, and they molested more than a few boys. Why do you think the Scouts had the ban in the first place? Because this was a well known long-standing problem in scouting! It was hard enough to try to sort out the closet cases among the scoutmasters, and the new policy was going to flood scouts with a lot more gay scoutmasters. Just what the Scouts need.

Despite gains made for LGBT equality, Perkins and the FRC have continued their anti-gay activities, including opposition to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). According to Perkins, President Obama was working with the “totalitarian homosexual lobby” to sneak ENDA into law and should that happen, freedom of religion will be “destroyed.”

Opinion. Well, you know, this is just wrong. In general, I think that it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, employment, etc. simply for being homosexuals.
But we ought to be able to discriminate on other grounds. For instance, suppose a flamboyantly gay man applies at my store to be a customer clerk. My clientele is mostly straight men, a lot of whom are macho rednecks who will not take kindly to a screaming faggot asking, “Can I help you?” In this case, I might be able to hire a gay man if he was straight acting and promised to be quiet about his orientation so as not to scare off my clientele.
Suppose you have a restaurant. The hosts are people who greet customers and show them their seats. I have a right to turn down a flamboyant homosexual who wants to work as a host because he will scare off my diners. Instead, I would happy to employ him in a backroom somewhere, but he can’t be out there greeting diners.
Other than these minor cases though, I think gays should have the same employment and housing rights as members of racial groups or the two genders.

Perkins also has worked to keep America safe from Betty Crocker. In September 2013, he called for a boycott of the iconic brand because General Mills, which produces it, donated custom cakes to three LGBT couples in Minnesota who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage a month earlier.

Opinion. Wow. Ugly.

In 2015, as the FRC tilted into anti-Muslim sentiment – especially with the hiring of retired Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin – Perkins said that Islam is such a danger that Muslim Americans should not have the same religious freedoms as other citizens.

Opinion. Not sure what he means by this, but this is ugly.

After a man with radical Islamic beliefs fatally shot 49 people at an Orlando LGBT nightclub in June 2016, Perkins pointed the finger at the Obama Administration – claiming that the administration marginalized Christians and elevated Islam. “We have to deal with the underlying issue, which is an ideology that’s incompatible with American liberty,” Perkins wrote. “An ideology, tragically, that this administration has empowered through its public policy and private diplomacy.”

False. Yuck. The problem here is that this attack had nothing to with Islam. The attacker himself was a gay man, so he was not killing gay men out of hatred or bigotry. Instead, he had had an affair with a Puerto Rican gay man who he met at that bar, and that man had given him HIV. This was a Puerto Rican gay bar. So he decided to take revenge against Puerto Rican gay men in general by shooting up the bar.

In a 2016 FRC email to followers about the issue, Perkins warned: “If government can force the ‘normalization’ or even the celebration of something as universally unnatural as men using women’s restrooms and vice versa, then it can force the rest of its agenda on the American people very easily,” resulting in “social chaos” and the breakdown of all “sexual inhibition and morality.”

False. I doubt if that’s going to happen, but at 60, I would love to see sexual inhibition and morality break down a lot more. Perhaps I would get more dates.

During 2016, Perkins was part of the Republican committee as a delegate from Louisiana that created the GOP platform.
Perkins reportedly proposed a plank that supported conversion therapy for minors, though the wording, apparently revised from the original, does not specifically mention conversion therapy – a pseudoscientific practice that claims to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight, and has been denounced by every major U.S. medical and mental health association. The platform committee ultimately passed a resolution affirming “the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children.”

Opinion. Conversion therapy is a controversial issue, and in general it does not seem to work, although it is proven that sex surrogacy can help some lesbians to enjoy sex with men.

After Trump’s election, the FRC and Perkins were heavily involved in the formation of policy for the new administration. FRC Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell was named the head of domestic policy for the transition team. The FRC also took steps to ensure the new administration would undo President Obama’s work advancing LGBT equality – efforts that come after Perkins’ June 2016 claim that a Trump presidency would be better for the LGBT community than a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Opinion. This sounds bad.

The Most Evil Heavy Metal Music Ever

I realize this stuff is pretty horrible, and I am sure that this band, from Satan Records, truly worships Satan, which is problematic to say the least. And the lyrics and album covers of a lot of these (pornocore is the worst) seem likely to lead a few people down the wrong path. It’s dangerous art, as dangerous as violent pornography which some of it is based on the album covers and lyrics.
This band is called Sewer and they are on Satan Records, which advertises itself as the most evil music ever made.
Even though this type of music is so dangerous on certain levels that some of it should arguably be banned, I hate to say it but…I really like this song.
Hangs head in shame.

This music kicks, period. Good musicians too.
The song is called, er, Pedosadist. I know that’s terrible, and true pedosadists or more properly mysopeds are definitely very dangerous people. Even I think that’s terrible. But it’s still good music no matter how evil and dangerous it is.

Psychopathology of Serial Murderers

The primary problem with almost all serial killers is simply ASPD, Antisocial Personality Disorder, (derived) sociopathy or (primary) psychopathy. It is present in almost 100% of such cases. Most everything else is rather secondary to this primary character disorder, which is the most prominent symptom.

Very rare is the serial killer without this disorder, although there have been a few. I remember a long-distance trucker who turned himself when he walked into a Northern California police station with a woman’s breast in his top shirt pocket. He had camped out in forests while trucking and had picked up women and killed them. He kept the body of one in the truck for three or four days and drove around with it.

Experts said he was quite unusual in that they said he actually felt bad about what he had done. I wonder how bad he really felt though. You could not get me to drive around in a truck with a dead woman in the back for very long. I would go into severe panic pretty fast, stop the truck, and get out, and start walking or probably running away.

I would not be able to walk around with a woman’s breast in my shirt for long either. I would completely panic almost right away, take the shirt off, throw it on the ground, and start running. But then I am a pretty guilty type person with a strong conscience.

Based on that, while I am sure he may have felt some guilt for his killings, the fact that he was able to drive around in a truck with a dead woman in the back for 3-4 days shows without completely flipping out shows to me that he didn’t feel that much guilt, certainly not on the level that most of us would.

And the fact that he could rather calmly walk into a police station with a cut-off breast in his pocket without flying into total panic shows to me that he didn’t feel that bad about it. So guilt, even when it is present, is not as strong as in most of us, otherwise they would not have even done such horrible things in the first place.

Sexual sadism is also often present, and I have heard that Sadistic Personality Disorder is very common. Juvenile delinquency, voyeurism, exhibitionism, burglary, prowling, petty thievery, etc. typically precede the serial killings. When the serial killer starts killing, he usually has a fairly long rap sheet of more minor offenses. The murders are best seen as an escalation of a chronic criminal character type.

The ones who kill children are typically though not always preferential or fixated pedophiles. Certainly the ones who kill only children are preferential pedophiles. There is a type of pedophile called a mysoped, which is a sadistic pedophile. They are not very common. I doubt if 5% of pedophiles are like this, but these people are very dangerous. Probably almost all serial child killers are mysopeds, and these crimes often have a sexual basis.

95% of rapists are the type that rarely if ever go serial, but the sadistic rapist, composed of no more than 5% of rapists, is very dangerous. Most if not all rapist serial killers are sadistic rapists.

The rage rapist is dangerous, but he generally does not intend to kill his victim although he assaults her. If she fights back or gets difficult, he can fly into a rage and beat her so badly that she dies, but again he usually does not intend to kill. I doubt if these types go serial much if at all. Serial killers intend to kill; rage rapists do not.

Malignant narcissism, the disorder, believe it or not, of our wonderful President, is also present sometimes. Ted Bundy was a malignant narcissist. Yes, our wonderful President has the same mental illness as Ted Bundy! Comforting thought.

A few have Schizoid Personality Disorder, and some of the more disturbed ones have Borderline Personality Disorder.

Schizotypal, Paranoid, and Narcissistic Personality Disorders are rarely if ever seen in serial killers. Schizotypals are probably too disorganized and decompensated and just out and out strange to commit such crimes. The serial killer must blend in, and schizotypals do not do that. A few schizotypals have committed mass murders. James Holmes the Aurora Batman Theater Shooter, was a notable case. But note that he was caught immediately.

Paranoid PD is rarely if ever seen. These people tend to be rather retiring and like to hide away from a hostile world. They also do not like to call attention to themselves from a hostile world. They are suspicious and distrustful by nature, and this makes it hard for them to blend in well with ordinary society as serial killers often do.

Narcissists are usually too self-centered to kill. While narcissists are often very mean, the disorder is usually well-controlled in that the rage rarely escalates to homicide. There have been a few cases of NPD’s committing mass murder, usually of their families. The case of Jeffrey MacDonald, the mass murdering physician of Fatal Vision, seems to be such a case. This is a superb true crime book by the way.

Also narcissists think that if they kill, they will get caught, and if they are in prison or jail they will not be able to live this wonderful life they are supposed to be killing. They are “too cool to kill.”

Killing would mess up all their wonderful plans to exploit others and hold them up to contempt by millions of people, which the narcissist would have a hard time taking. The narcissist is “too good for prison.” Prison would be such a crushing blow to their self-image that it would very hard to take.

However, malignant narcissists can be very dangerous because this is a combination of psychopathy, sadism, Paranoid PD and Narcissistic PD. When you weaponize NPD with paranoia, sadism and particularly psychopathy, you create a dangerous illness.

Cluster C Personality Disorders like Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder are rarely if ever present in these types. These are PD’s where aggression is mostly displayed passively, and serial killers display aggression actively, not passively.

Mood disorders do not seem to be common. Bipolar Disorder is not common, and serial killers are rarely if ever depressed. They displace guilt and loathing outwards instead of pushing it inside of themselves as depressives do.

Depressives are passive, and depression acts as sort of a freezing agent in that it tends to immobilize people by its nature.

Men in general tend to either experience less depression than women or mask it with other things such as anger and rage, drinking, drugs, gambling, promiscuity, or even workaholism. It is simply not acceptable as a man to be depressed, so depressed men simply channel their depression into other things and say they are not depressed, they are just drunks or workaholics, for instance.

Substance and alcohol abuse issues are quite common with serial killers, but the better ones are more sober, as drinkers and dopers tend to be scattered and unreliable, and serial killers must be on the ball  24-7.

Only a few are psychotic. 2% of serial killers are psychotic. Psychotic people can barely organize a trip to the bathroom. How are they going to plot out elaborate and professional serial homicides?

They are motivated by many things, but your typical rape-murders or murders of attractive young women almost always have a sexual component. I would call these serial killings lust murders. The Germans coined the term.

Even among the lust-murders, there are a number of different types. Some are motivated by purely sexual desires, others get off specifically on killing and the power gained from it, others are hunter types who get pleasure from the hunt and chase as if they were hunting an animal, which they are of course, but when we refer to hunters, we are always talking about hunters of non-human animals.

Extremely Disturbing "Pedophilia" Video


There is actually some truth to this. Quite a few minors who were “victims” of “pedophiles” feel this way, male and female. However, to be fair, most of the accounts that I have read were from people who were teenagers at the time having sex with adults. It is quite common for people who had sexual relationships with adults as teens to feel that the experience was positive. I have read quite a few such accounts.
However, this is the first account I have read from someone who was an actual child – under the age of 13 – who said that they enjoyed the experience. She was 12 and he was 23 when they met. The relationship continued for a year until she was 13 and he was 24, and they forced him to move.
I do not think kids (people under age 13) ever really want to have sex with anyone much, especially adults. They do engage in childhood sex play a lot, but they’re not doing that because they’re horny, and they want to get laid. They’re doing it because they’re curious.
However, when I was 20, a 12 year old girl propositioned me, that is, she asked me to have sex with her. I worked as a janitor at an elementary school and as a 6th grader at age 11, she was my little “best friend.” She was my “little helper.” She befriended me for some reason and used to go on my rounds with me “helping me” on my job.
She talked a lot about what was going on in her life. She was the child of a single Mom, and she told me about how her Mom used to get drunk and have different men over to have sex with them. So she was pretty worldly, 11 going on 20, in that respect.
If you ask me if I had any sexual feelings for this 11 year old girl, I would not know how to answer because honestly I am not aware if I ever saw her in a sexual way. 11 years old girls are not something I think of as sexual beings or sex objects. To me, they seem “sexless.”
I saw her that summer in the park where we both were running. Now she was 12 going on 25. We got to talking, and she out and out more or less asked me to have sex with her.
Her: I’ve been thinking about sex a lot lately.
Me: Um, uh, yeah, ok…
Her: I’m thinking I want to do it.
Me: Uh, yeah, um, well, uhhh…
Her: And I’m thinking I want to do it with you!
I forget what I said afterwards, but it was something like thanks but no thanks.
Because she asked me to have sex with her, that turned into a sexual type experience in my Sexual History file in my brain. Although she was beautiful and interesting in other ways (top student, star athlete), I wasn’t really interested in having sex with her, and it was not just because of the law. She just didn’t seem like someone I could have sex with at that age. She was just way too young.
In later years, I used to try to fantasize about having sex with her, not because I am into 12 year old girls (I absolutely am not) but more because I am a pervert and I love to think about all sorts of weird, perverted sexual stuff just for the heck of it and as a way of telling society to go to Hell.
The weird thing is I could never make the fantasy work. In the fantasy, we would both be naked next to a bed and I would go to have sex with her, and it never worked. I simply could not and to this day cannot imagine having sex with such a young girl. I do not know what it is. She’s too little and I’m too big. Her vagina is too small and my penis is too big. She has almost zero tits. Or maybe just I’m too old and she’s too young. Whatever it is, the two parts of that fantasy, her and me, are like oil and water.
Anyway, this is an extremely disturbing video that adds a very weird new angle to the whole insane Pedophile debate, an angle that is sure ti ignite a lot of hot emotions.
If you ask me what I think should be done in such cases, I really have no idea. My basic view is men should not be messing with 12 year old girls. It’s just too much of a little girl. It’s just about real pedophilia, and the Hell with pedophilia.
If I think about it more, maybe we should look at this stuff at least with regard to teens and adults more on a case by case basis, and if the minor is totally fine with it, that is, if it is completely consensual, maybe we should not prosecute. But maybe in a case this this, we should tell them to knock it off. Which is precisely how the police dealt with it in this case. But I am not sure of those opinions either, as my feelings are pretty embryonic about this sort of thing.
Right now the law is pretty clear, and any man messing with a 12 year old girl, consensual or not, deserves whatever is coming to him. Not because he’s a bad guy necessarily but more because he’s an idiot. The laws are deadly about this sort of thing, and any man breaking those laws is insanely reckless and I have no sympathy for him or reckless fools in general. I generally feel that reckless fools deserve whatever comes to them, good or bad. They’re asking for it.

Men Arrested for Having Sex with Underage Dolls

I wrote about this insanity earlier. I told you that feminists were already working to try to ban sex dolls. Now it turns out they are already doing it.

Two men, one in Canada and one in Australia, have been arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for owning dolls that are shaped like 12-14 year old Lolis.

Yep, you read that right. Two men were arrested for owning underage dolls. That’s so stupid it’s not even real. You see, underage dolls are harmed when men own them and use them for sex because while adult dolls are capable of consent, underage dolls are simply not capable of consenting due to the immaturity of their plastic brains.

I am surprised they didn’t charge these guys with child molesting for fucking these ridiculous dolls. That’s probably coming next. Nothing’s too bizarre for Pedophile Mass Hysteria, brought to you by the feminists.

Both of these men are apparently going to get off because while child pornography laws are absolutely insane, they are not quite this insane yet. And yes, child pornography laws are insane. For instance, in some cases drawings of children having sex with adults are illegal.

The whole argument against child pornography is based on the notion that a child was harmed in making the images. The images show the commission of a crime along with a criminal perpetrator and a crime victim. By viewing these images (dubious argument) and certainly by collecting, trading and selling them for sexual gratification (better argument) you are re-victimizing the child. The girl who got molested at age 10 gets “molested” over and over again each time her images are collected, traded or sold. I suppose there is some sort of a rational argument in there somewhere. Anyway, true child pornography is so awful that society is completely within its means to ban the stuff.

But drawings? What’s the argument? The girl in the drawing got harmed? The girl in the drawing is a crime victim? The man in the drawing is a criminal? The drawing shows the commission of an actual crime which definitely occurred? Every time you collect, trade of sell that drawing, the poor little girl in that drawing is victimized over and over again?

What the Hell?

True pedophiles have an actual sexual orientation like homosexuality or heterosexuality. They can’t help their orientation any more than any of us can. I say let the pedos have their drawings, stories and dolls but now their images or actual humans being victimized. After all, they have a right to satisfy their sexual urges in some manner, do they not?

Video of a Psychopathic Sex Offender

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7SYdi36D3g]
This is a very nice video by the same psychologist who did the previous video. This guy does appear to be a classic psychopath. I have seen several videos of classic psychopaths and they do have this certain common “way” about them, especially the smiling, charming, confident type like this fellow. He also molested 24 kids, mostly girls between the ages of 10-16
Diagnosis:
Some sort of pedophilia/hebephilia (non-exclusive type)
Antisocial personality disorder
The question arises whether or not this fellow is a pedophilic or non-pedophilic molester. The problem is that he does seem to fixated on some pretty young girls. While sex with girls aged 13-16 is generally not even considered child molesting, sex with girls aged 10-12 nearly always is. So he is engaging in pedophilic and nonpedophilic sex with some pretty young girls, and he is doing it over and over. We have no data on how he feels about older females, but it is clear that he likes them young.
He also started grooming his own daughter at age 1, and incredibly enough, he started molesting her at the age of only 18 months or 1 1/2 years old. That’s pretty crazy, and most men who mess with very young girls are the pedophilic rather than the nonpedophilic type as most regular guys think sexual behavior with very young girls is extremely disturbing and weird.
He needs to be locked up and away from the rest of us. If they release him, he will probably do it again.

Interview with a Sadistic Sex Offender

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNURaaxE1zw]
This is an extremely disturbing video, but there are worse ones out there. This fellow is definitely some sort of a fixated pedophile/hebephile. However, he also seems to be attracted to people his own age. However, he is obsessed with sex with boys age 8-16 and he basically lives his life around this obsession. He raped and molested over 300 boys in his career, including his 9 year old stepson. He would have killed his stepson if he had not been stopped. He also regularly beat up his wife and kid. Somehow he managed to fool everyone. He had a great paying job, a business, a nice car, and regularly dined in fancy restaurants and clubs.
Diagnosis:
Pedophilia/hebephilia (non-exclusive type)
Sexual sadism (severe)
Granted most folks would want to call this guy a psychopath or a sociopath, but I am not really getting that from him. He has some rather complex emotions going on, and that’s not typical of a sociopath. Rather, he seems to be a more typical sex offender. Not all sex offenders are psychopaths, and most pedophiles are probably not psychopaths. Not all rapists are psychopaths. And many prison inmates are not sociopaths either.

Threat Assessment in OCD

This is an excellent article.
Examples of obsessions:

Examples of normal intrusive thoughts include the image of touching the genitalia of a child, worry (in the absence of any evidence) as to whether one had caused an accident on the way home, urges or impulses to attack a loved one with a kitchen knife, or thoughts and images of jumping onto a railway track in front of an oncoming train.

That is a pretty good list, and the author points out that 80% of the population report having these thoughts also.

The risk is that the patient will act on an obsession (e.g. suicide or sexual acts with a child) or impulsively act out an obsessional fear. At its simplest, this need never be a concern: there are no recorded cases of a person with OCD carrying out their obsession. By definition, such intrusions are unacceptable and ego-dystonic, and the person is no more likely to act on their intrusions than a person with height phobia is to jump off a tall building. The obsession represents a type of fear or worry that the patient does not want to happen; like all fears or worries, it concerns ideas that the patient wishes to avert at all costs.

That seems to be correct, however, when the illness gets severe, the person can become convinced that they actually want to carry out these acts. I have spoken to quite a few people with OCD who told me that the illness made them feel like they wanted to have gay sex or have sex with children or assault and murder people. This is probably correct though in that people with OCD do not act on their obsessions. I have not met one person who acted on an obsession of causing harm to themselves or others, or how did anything sexual to a child in response to an obsession.
However, there are cases of people with gay OCD who get so convinced that they are gay that they go out and have sex with someone of the same sex. Usually this is a complete disaster and I would not advise it.
There are also cases of people with Relationship OCD who have left their partners or spouses. Generally, this does not solve the ROCD dilemma.

Where compulsions are concerned, urges that are themselves obsessions need to be distinguished from urges arising as responses to obsessions. Once this is done, the risks are relatively obvious. Thus, if someone has an obsessional fear of cutting themselves, you can be very certain that they will not harm themselves.
However, if the idea of harming others is the obsession, they might respond by cutting themselves rather than harming someone they love. Secondary risks are often subtle. For example, a parent who is constantly preoccupied with their obsessions may become less responsive and emotionally available to their children.

This is interesting. I have dealt with a few OCD’ers who cut themselves. All were women.
The next part goes into differentiating Sexual OCD from the type of thinking that goes on in a sex offender.

OCD or potential sexual offender?
Various factors differentiate the intrusive sexual thoughts of people with OCD from those of sexual offenders

  • Ego-dystonicity of the thoughts
  • Failure to act on or masturbate to the thoughts
  • Avoidance of trigger situations
  • Efforts to suppress the thoughts
  • Very frequent or constant occurrence of the thoughts
  • Dominant anxiety, distress and guilt about the thoughts
  • Overdisclosure of irrelevant past sexual history
  • Wanting help and seeking referral to mental health services
  • Presence of additional obsessive–compulsive symptoms

That is a pretty good list.
Assuming that in a sex offender, we are dealing with some sort of a paraphilia, I had one OCD’er who had obsessive thoughts of slitting his father’s throat. He was terrified that he was going to act on these thoughts and that he got some sort of sexual arousal out of them. His therapist told him that this was OCD, and that paraphilias are “about desire, not fear,” and “no resistance.” This is about right. I would expect to see little to no resistance in a paraphilia. OCD is a problem of fear and paraphilia is a problem of desire.
You are also looking at something that is occurring all or almost all of the time. If it is, it is likely you are dealing with an obsession. With paraphilias, they are much less likely to be going all the time, and when they are frequent, the person is likely to be fantasizing.
The anxiety, distress and guilt over the thoughts is often profound. I have had quite a few OCD’ers tell me that they were crying for hours on end, either could not sleep or were lying in bed all day or had even lost weight due to not eating. It is quite common for them to say that they are suicidal; however, OCD’ers usually do not attempt or commit suicide. I have only had OCD’er who attempted suicide and she tried twice.
Presence of another disorder like Borderline Personality Disorder is likely to greatly increase the risk of suicidality. In such cases, the suicidality is likely due to the BPD and not the OCD. It is curious that OCD’ers are so commonly suicidal but they rarely attempt or carry it out. The OCD’er is a shy, almost meek person whose dominant emotion is fear or even terror. Quite simply, they are too scared of dying to kill themselves, so the fear associated with suicide prevents them from carrying out the act. In contrast, a violent of sexual offender is likely to see the thoughts as fun or enjoyable, though sometimes they feel guilty for enjoying them so much.
Wanting help is a great one. When someone comes to me on the brink of suicide due to their “horrible pedo thoughts that popped up out of the blue,” I am quite certain that this person is not a pedophile. I have only have one pedophile come to me in all the time I have worked with OCD’ers, and he went away pretty quickly. In contrast, sex offenders or pedophiles will rarely show up for help. One man who was interested in working with pedophiles as a career was told that unless he was working in a prison setting, he would never see one in clinical practice.
Resistance is the hallmark of OCD. George Winokur, a famous psychiatrist, said, “Look at how hard the person fights the thoughts. That is a clue to whether you are dealing with OCD or with something else.”
Another interesting thing you will see is checking. So the person with pedophile thoughts will constantly conjure up pedo thoughts and then examine their reaction to them to see if they are properly horrified. A person with gay thoughts tests himself to see whether or not he finds gay sex repulsive. A person with violent thoughts frequently conjures up violent thoughts or scenarios to check to see if they are actually repulsed by them or if they are repulsed by them enough. Sometimes the thought or image must be repeated over and over until the person finally feels that they have obtained the “right” level of disgust. You will see much less resistance in paraphilias; in fact, typically, there is none.
Failure to masturbate to the thoughts is not a great checkpoint, as I have had quite a few folks who were masturbating to pedo thoughts as a way of checking to see if they were turned on by this sort of thing. In the paraphilias, the person masturbates, often compulsively, to the imagery of the paraphilia, pedophilic, sadomasochistic or other fantasies or pornography. They get great pleasure out of this, and they generally do not want to stop.
Ego-dystonic is excellent. Paraphilias are much more likely to be ego-syntonic. Although this one is a bit tricky, and the OCD will often argue with the person and tell them that they actually like the thoughts when they do not. This leads to a lot of confusion over whether they enjoy the thoughts or not.

They will avoid trigger situations.
Harm OCD’ers will avoid other people or avoid weapons, heights or pill bottles if they worry about self-harm. Pedophile OCD’ers will avoid children like the plague. Gay OCD’ers will avoid anything to do with gay people. Sometimes they avoid their own sex or even the opposite sex. In contrast, many pedophiles will actively seek out places where children are present.
Overdisclosure of irrelevant past. Many times, those with pedophile worries will reveal all sorts of incidents in their childhood past that they feel prove that they are pedophiles. Usually this is just harmless child sex play of the sort that all children engage in. A Harm OCD’er will reveal incidents in his past in which he was violent in order to prove that he is a murderer. Usually this sort of thing is sort of a back-checking and doubting sort of thing in which the mind is trying to come up with reasons why the obsession is true. In contrast, a sex offender will often hide their past due to fears of being caught.
Presence of other OCD symptoms. This is an excellent clue that you are dealing with OCD, and I use it often when I am trying to figure out if I am dealing with OCD or something else. With a sex offender, usually you will not find any OCD.

Factors suggesting OCD in thoughts of violence

  1. Ego-dystonicity
  2. Absence of past behavior consistent with the thought
  3. Presence of avoidance behavior (e.g. avoidance of knives or sharp implements)
  4. Frequent thoughts
  5. High degree of distress
  6. Strong motivation to seek help

The ego-dystonic nature of violent thoughts is often profound, and the resistance provoked by them is often extreme. In contrast, real violent thoughts are typically ego-syntonic and are quite pleasant to the person.
Absence of past violent behavior. The Harm OCD’er is typically a very nice, kind, sweet and gentle person – the last sort of person you would think would do such a thing. They typically have little violence in their past, certainly little violent crime or unprovoked attacks on innocents.
Presence of avoidance behavior. The Harm OCD’er is often afraid of knives, weapons, etc. and tries to put them away or hide them. In contrast, a violent person may be quite comfortable with weapons.
Frequent thoughts. When the violent thoughts are going all the time like a broken record, you may be dealing with OCD. Violent people do not necessarily think violent thoughts all the time. Instead they only think them some of the time.
High degree of distress. Harm thoughts provoke severe anxiety. Some people hospitalize themselves to avoid hurting other people. I talked to one woman who had been in a hospital for four years with Harm OCD. In contrast, violent people tend to like their violent thoughts and they think them anytime they want to with great pleasure.
An OCD’er with Harm OCD told me that they went to a forum for psychopaths and asked them about the harm thoughts that he was experiencing and whether they experienced the same thoughts. The sociopaths were mystified that the man felt the thoughts were abhorrent. One of them said, “Actually, one of the few things I like to think about is hurting people and killing people.” The rest of the sociopaths all endorsed that statement. Dangerous people like to think violent thoughts; they get kicks out of it.
Strong motivation to seek help. The OCD’er is panicked over is violent thoughts and desperately wants to be rid of them. By contrast, a truly violent person likes to feel violent and doesn’t want to feel any other way. I have not yet had a truly violent person come to me wanting help with violent thoughts so they don’t carry them out.
I had one homicidal person, but they very much wanted to feel that way, and there was nothing I could do to talk them out of it. The whole problem with this sort of thing is that the people who are actually going to carry out violent and sexual offenses, the people who are really going to do these things – well, they never show up. Instead the only ones clinicians see are the people who are never going to act on any of this stuff.
Resistance. I would add this one to the list. Violent thoughts often provoke furious resistance in an attempt to keep them out of the head. In contrast, someone who is actually going to carry out an unprovoked act of violence against an innocent person spends little if any time resisting thoughts. One Harm OCD’er was afraid he was a serial killer, but he had never committed any violent acts along those lines.
He asked his therapist, “What about a person who actually does these things? Do they ever try to stop the thoughts?”
“No.”
“Not even once.”
“No, not even once, of course not.”
So resistance or the lack of it really is a good marker for OCD versus something else.
Therapists often make OCD worse in various ways. Here are some of the ways that they can make it worse.

Examples of patients’ comments regarding their assessments
‘He gave me a differential diagnosis which made me panic as it increased my doubts about whether I did have OCD.’
‘She said that, to be on the safe side, it would be better if I avoided working with children until I had received treatment.’
‘He said SSRI’s might reduce my sexual urges so I assumed he must think there was a problem.’
‘She said I was unlikely to act out any urges but she was still obliged to notify Social Services.’
‘He implied I might have an unconscious wish to stab my baby.’
‘He said it was extremely rare for such thoughts to mean that someone was dangerous, but if I was still worried, I could go for a specialist assessment at the sexual offenders unit.’
‘She said it was very rare for this type of violent thought to lead people to act on it, but “as you obviously have a problem dealing with anger, then therapy would be a good idea”.’

There is no point in saying any of these things, and I try very hard not to make OCD’ers worse when I deal with them.

References

Veale, David; Freeston, Mark; Krebs, Georgina; Heyman, Isobel and Salkovskis, Paul. 2009. Risk Assessment and Management in Obsessive–compulsive Disorder. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 15: 332-343

Therapy of Sex Offenders

Therapy of sex offenders is a difficult subject, with much misinformation around. We have data in for three types:

  1. Pedophiles
  2. Exhibitionists
  3. Rapists

In general, therapy for pedophiles and exhibitionists has fared pretty well. The best techniques are probably cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Persons who go through therapy are significantly less likely to re-offend than those who do not. It is a lie that sex offenders are all incurable.
The therapy of rapists has been much more difficult and until recently, it had a bad track record. However, recent advances in CBT have shown that rapists can be treated with some success. Whether that success is at a higher or lower rate than the prior two offenders is not known.
The problems with the rapist are generally at least twofold.
1. Rage, anger and hatred. Most if not all rapists have extremely high levels of rage, anger and hatred. In fact, this is what typically motivates the crime. In addition, it is typical for them to have strong to extreme levels of hatred for women. It is the rage in general and the hatred for women in particular that tends to set off the crimes.
2. Low levels of empathy. Most if not all rapists have low to nonexistent levels of empathy for their victims. Although most sex offenses are characterized by similarly low levels of empathy, the lack of empathy in rapists is quite striking. In many cases, they simply do not care how their female victim feels. In other cases, they rationalize that the victim, or really all women, want to be raped, that is, they secretly desire it or enjoy it. Some say that unless the woman is violently fighting back, that means she wants it and enjoys it.
Low empathy levels are obviously a significant driver for offending, and it is one of the hardest things to deal with in therapy. Often there does not seem to be any way to get the offender to feel empathy for his potential victims. Why this is uncertain. Perhaps some people simply do not want to feel empathy. The therapy of individuals like this is to tell that even though they don’t feel empathy for their potential victims, they should not offend anyway because to do so might get them in trouble with the law. So you appeal to the offender’s self-interest in not offending. It’s not how you will make the victim feel, it is about what will happen to your life.
There is no one type of rapist. Not all rapists are serial rapists, though serial rapists are the worst kind by far. Some rapists rape only once and without warning. When asked, some of these types say they do not even know why they raped; they just did it. Others, serial rapists and single rapists, rape at a stressful point in their lives. Rape appears to be their way of blowing off steam so to speak.
Serial rapists may have gotten into a habit of compulsively raping. In this case, it is like an addiction, and it may be difficult to break the habit.
Antecedents of rape include voyeurism, exhibitionism, transvestic fetishism, frotteurism, panty fetishes and raiding women’s places to obtain them and burglary. All of these have in common a violation of the female victim in one way or another. While many who do these things do not escalate, some do.

Is Sexual Attraction to Minors "Normal" Among Males?

That is a very disturbing question, and the answer is even more disturbing. A number of years ago, I would have answered a resounding “No!” to that question. Nevertheless, recent research shows that it is more or less normal for adult males to be sexually attracted to female children on some level or another. Now that doesn’t mean it is ok for them to act on those feelings and have sex with the girl.
It’s against the law, and nowadays in many cases, the girl is harmed by this interaction. In some cases she is physically harmed, and in in many more cases, she is psychologically harmed.
The reasons for the psychological harm are up in the air – no one knows what causes them. Perhaps it is automatically harmful for an adult to have sex with a child. This is dubious because many children decide that they were not harmed by this behavior.
The other alternative is that society’s reaction is what harms the child. The debate is very complex, and there are no easy answers, but the bottom line is that kids get hurt by adults messing with them sexually. So don’t do it! If you care about kids at all, don’t mess with them sexually. It’s against the law, you may well get caught, and in many cases, the kid may well get hurt.
The harm is not limited to childhood but often extends far into adulthood. In fact, there may even be physical changes to the brains of children who have been sexually abused.
Nevertheless, the three studies I have looked at show that attraction to children is fairly normal for adult males. I don’t have the studies with me right now as I found them in my research, but you should be able to find them if you go online.
Study 1: Study 1 showed that adult males have a maximal reaction to females aged 16+ and then a rapidly descending reaction to female minors all the way down to age 7, where the curve ended. This implies that male reaction to females aged 7-15 on rapidly descending curve with a lower reaction to matures is simply normal. That doesn’t mean it is ok to act on such desires. It just means it is ok to feel that way. It’s nothing to worry about!
Study 2: Study 2 showed that 100% of adult males reacted to females aged 17+ and 90% of males reacted to females aged 2-16 on a lower level than their reaction to matures. Therefore, reaction to minors was normal but on a lower level than matures, for 90% of males.
Study 3: This study was the most disturbing, but I suppose it is correct. It showed that all adult males had a maximal reaction to females aged 13+. In addition, males showed a reaction to female minors aged 2-12 but at a lower level. The most shocking figure was that 26% of males showed reaction to females aged 2-12 at an equivalent to even higher level than they reacted to females aged 13+.
Therefore, 26% of adult males showed a strong sexual reaction to females aged 2-12. That is stunning, but I assume the study is correct. The problem is that this study indicates that up to 26% of all males could possibly be diagnosed with DSM-5 pedophilia if they were bothered by their minor attractions. That makes no sense, and it shows that the criteria for DSM-5 pedophilia are irrational.
If 26% of all adult males have strong reactions to female children, why don’t they molest them? Probably because they think it is wrong, and they have strong reactions to female matures at the same time. They simply shrug off their attractions to female minors as a feeling that will get them in legal trouble and maybe hurt the girl, and they choose not to act on them, which is the proper and legally sanctioned reaction. Thoughts are thoughts, and actions are actions. You can think about anything you want to. Thoughts are not illegal yet.
How do these 26% of all males who react strongly to female children differ from true pedophiles? The true pedophile is pretty much only attracted to female children. They have been this way since childhood or at the latest puberty. The orientation cannot develop after age 14. They have a maximal attraction to minors and a minimal to zero attraction to matures of adults. The vast majority of this 26% of all males above, while they react strongly to female children, also have extremely strong reactions to female matures or adults. Therefore their sexual needs can be easily satisfied by sex with a mature to adult female.
Pedophiles are dangerous, unfortunately, because they have a maximal reaction to children and a minimal to zero reaction to matures or adults. Therefore, in order to satisfy their sexual needs, in many cases, pedophiles may feel the need to break the law. They may acquire child pornography for masturbatory desires, and in many cases, they molest children in order to fulfill their sexual needs.
While many can go long periods without molesting children, long term studies show that after 25 year followup, 50% of pedophiles have re-offended against children, so the recidivism rate is quite high. Nevertheless, the therapy of pedophiles has shown good results. Pedophiles who go through extensive therapy are much less likely to re-offend than those who do not.
Since the criteria for DSM-5 are nonsense, what are better criteria? I think we need to go all the way back to DSM-2 and DSM-3 where pedophilia was defined as a primary or exclusive preference for children with little or no reaction to mature persons.
The ever-growing expansion of DSM pedophilia has been driven by the desire to label child molesters with a mental disorder so we can sock them away in mental hospitals forever as mentally disorder sex offenders. That child molesters are criminals is beyond doubt. That the majority of them are mentally ill is very much up in the air and is probably not true.
Clinicians should not give in to the state project to classify an ever-growing population of criminals as mentally ill so as to keep them locked far beyond their terms, possibly forever. This is a mass incarceration project with dubious psychiatric validity and clinicians should not be a party to such politically driven projects that are not validated by empirical psychological science.

Most Child Molesters Are Not Pedophiles

Feminist X writes:

RL: 90-95% of child molesters are not pedophiles. They are just heterosexual males molesting in the family or with relatives as a substitute for an adult female partner.
Do you have evidence of this? Seems to me that all normal hetero men absolutely reject any form of partnering with children. A desperate hetero male would use a 9 yr old as a substitute for the adult female partner he preferred? Really? I would think that anyone who partners with a 9 yr old has desire for children and therefore is a pedophile. Sure, they may also like adults or even like adult women more, but if you are getting it up for a 9 yr old, you are a pedophile in my book.

It depends on how we define pedophile. In my opinion, the DSM definition is garbage and needs to be tossed.
A pedophile is one who is sexually fixated on children. He primarily or exclusively gets off to kids and has little to no reaction to mature persons.
As far as the 90-95% of men who molest children and are not pedophiles, they have no fixation on children as a sexual object. They have a strong or maximal sexual reaction to mature persons Therefore they are not pedophiles. If you have a strong or maximal sexual reaction to mature persons, you cannot possibly be a pedophile.
Pedophiles like kids. They don’t like matures or adults. Period. That’s the only definition that makes sense to me.
I hate to sound like a man-hating gender feminist, but I know my gender very well. Men will screw anything. A woman, a teenage girl, a little girl, an old lady, a man, a teenage boy, maybe even a little boy if he’s twisted enough. If it’s got a hole, a guy will try to stick his dick in it, period. Sure, most men prefer a mature female, but a lot of them will pretty much screw anything, especially if it’s female.
The non-pedophilic men who molest children are not some psychological species called pedophiles. They are just criminals! We have to stop using psychological disorders to label criminals. There is a tendency in the DSM to try to say that every criminal has a psychiatric disorder. This crazy. Crazy is one thing, bad and crooked is another. Leave it up to the law to delineate the varieties of criminals and keep the psychiatrists out of it.
Pedophilia is a psychological disorder. It’s just not normal to be only turned on by kids and not turned on at all by matures or adults. If you are, there is something wrong with your head. Pedophiles are not necessarily criminals. There are pedophiles who do not molest children for long periods of time, possibly forever. A pedophile is only a criminal when he breaks the law. His sexual orientation is not a crime.
Child molestation is a crime. Some people who do this have a psychological disorder called pedophilia and most do not. Most of them are just criminals. They aren’t crazy at all. They are simply people who don’t care much about other people and take advantage of vulnerable people in order to use them sexually. They are sexual opportunists.

About Sex Offenders

I was studying the case of the murder of Brooke Wilberger in Oregon (I am a true crime buff). A man named Joel Patrick Courtney was eventually convicted of the crime. They only suspected him on dumb luck, as he lived in New Mexico and the crime was committed in Oregon.
However, there were three other men who were also suspects in this case. And they were all very good suspects. Each of them was a dangerous sexual predator like Courtney. This got me to wondering just how many nutted out men there are like this out there? You would think men like this would be rare as hen’s teeth, but it turns out that they are very common. I am very interested in the development of such types and how a man gets so whacked out as to turn into a predatory sex offender.
The first man was Sung Koo Kim, age 31. He was suspected of stalking a woman at the local Oregon State University. In searching his home, they found 3,500 pairs of panties stolen from five different local universities. They also found 40,000 porn movies and photos showing women being tortured, raped, murdered and mutilated. In addition, they found a Word document detailing what appeared to be a plan to abduct, rape, kill and mutilate a college student. He was arrested for possession of child porn and for stealing women’s panties and sentenced to six years in prison.
At his trial, he said that he suffered from severe social anxiety and had never had a girlfriend or even so much as a date. I am curious what turned him into such a psycho. Did he turn this way from never getting a chick and being frustrated with women, leading to the desire to murder one, or had he always been this way?
One would think that panty-stealing is innocent, but many dangerous sex predators also like to break into women’s places and steal panties. Some of them like to wear the panties that they steal.
As far as the porn videos went, if he really had 40,000 rape and murder videos on his computer, then this is what he has been masturbating to. He may have been masturbating to images and thoughts of abducting, raping, torturing, killing and mutilating women for a long time. This pattern is often set very early in life, often around age puberty. With the constant masturbation to this disturbing stimuli, the pattern becomes more entrenched and difficult to extinguish.
Guys like Kim typically never show up for therapy because they enjoy what they are doing. He liked to steal panties, stalk female students, jerk off to snuff porn and write down fantasies of rape and murder. This is what he enjoys. He’s doing what he wants to do. As he sees no problem with this behavior (this is what gets him off) he never shows up for therapy.
The next one was an immensely disturbed man named Loren Hugo Krueger, age around 40.
At age 26, he was convicted of attempted rape.
He served time when he was in his mid-20’s for an incident in which he attacked a female jogger, pointed a gun at her, tried to drag her off the road, and punched her in the face when she resisted.
At some point, he was released.
At age 34, he sexually assaulted a girl under the age of 12. He was convicted of this crime five years later.
At age 37, police questioned him when a young woman reported that he had followed her in his vehicle down several streets, stalking her.
The same year, neighbors filed a stalking order against him when neighbors said he masturbated in full view of their house (exhibitionism).
At age 38, he was arrested for trespassing when a woman reported that he was in her backyard at night, wearing a ski mask and watching her in her house.
At age 39, he climbed into a 15 year old girl’s window and tried to rape her. She fought him off and he ran away but was convicted via DNA.
He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Notice that this guy is a habitual sex offender. He has been stalking, flashing, assaulting, and attempting to rape women from age 26 until age 39. He also molested a little girl. There seems to be something compulsive about his behavior and he doesn’t seem to want to stop. It also seems like he is doing what he wants to do and he doesn’t want to stop.
The third case was Aaron James Evans.
Age 20: Approached a woman and fondled himself.
Age 20: Masturbated in front of a girl in a parking lot (exhibitionism)
Age 21: Harassed a woman at a shopping center.
Age 21: Leapt out of the bushes at a woman and attempted to abduct her. She pepper sprayed him and fought him off.
Sentenced to three years in prison.
Once he is out of prison, what is likelihood that this guy will re-offend? How does someone ever get this whack in the first place?
I am starting to think that once you get to the point where you are stalking women, attempting to abduct them using weapons, raping them or trying to rape them, and your fantasy life is mostly about rape, torture and murder, that for all intents and purposes, you are just gone. They don’t want to stop. They are doing what they want to do. They don’t want to get better. In addition, many of them have become habitual in their behavior. I suppose it is possible for someone like this stop, but I would wager that most of them don’t want to.
Antecedents:
In boyhood and teenage years, these types often spy on their sisters, the sisters’ female friends and their female cousins. Most boys probably do this, but these guys do it in a creepy way. The girl wakes up and sees her brother staring blankly from the doorway as she sleeps in her bed. She wakes up at night to find her brother hiding under her bed. Sisters and cousins wake up to find the relative stradding him with his penis out and trying to take their clothes off. In some cases, he is straddling them with his hands around their necks. He is basically trying to rape them. The attack on a sleeping suspect (always non-consenting) is particularly disturbing and is a prelude to rape.
Any boy who is doing this stuff with his female relatives is in extremely bad shape. This sort of thing is not normal in any way, and he desperately needs intervention.
Date rape: Often there is quite a bit of “date rape” type behaviors with females during the high school years. Some of them are very popular with girls, date a lot and have a lot of female friends who they hang out with. They go out drinking and doing drugs with their female friends and make moves on the girl. She bats him off and he socks her in the face. Next thing you know she is on the ground and he is raping her. They often get away with a lot of this date rape stuff because the girls don’t press charges.
Voyeurism can also be a prelude. Peeping toms are often harmless, but some of them escalate into dangerous sex offenders. We often see voyeurism in the teenage background of rapists and serial killers. The connection is here is that peeping is a violation of the woman. In addition, anyone ballsy enough to go onto someone’s property to peep in their windows has no qualms about violating the property of others. They can easily break into a home if they can creep into a backyard. Prowling is always creepy and menacing behavior in a male of any age.
Burglary is often found in the background of these types. They break into women’s houses, often to steal their undergarments. Sometimes they steal other things. Serial killers often have a teenage background of prowling and home burglaries. Although many burglars are harmless, some can be quite dangerous. Cat burglars are some of the most dangerous of all, since they burglarize when people are home.
Exhibitionism or flashing. Although many flashers are harmless, some can escalate and be dangerous. Quite a few rapists have flashing in their background. There are two types of flashers, an inhibited and guilt-ridden type and a more aggressive type. It is the more aggressive type that can be dangerous. Once again we are looking at a serious violation of the woman, and this is what this behavior has in common with rape. Exhibitionism can become very compulsive to the point where it resembles an addiction. It becomes hard to quit.
Escalation: One problem with sex offenders and sadists is the tendency to escalate. The sex offending or sadism is like a drug for them that they do to get high. However, like most dope, tolerance builds up and they start doing increasingly dangerous acts in order to get the high that they are missing. This is how an exhibitionist can escalate to a rapist and then to a killer. They are “chasing the high.”
Frotteurism: These are the “rubbers” and “grabbers.” They operate in crowded areas, especially trains, buses and subways. They use these crowded scenes to rub up against women. Sometimes they grab women and then run away. In some countries like Japan and India, this behavior is almost normal. I do not know much about these type of offenders.
Child molesting: I didn’t cover these offenders here because it really deserves its own post. These are different from the above as sometimes the victim is consenting. 90-95% of child molesters are not pedophiles. They are just heterosexual males molesting in the family or with relatives as a substitute for an adult female partner. These men are not pedophiles; they are no more attracted to kids than any other male is. These types may have a low rate of recidivism as they are not fixated on kids.
Pedophiles are however more dangerous since they are fixated on kids and are only aroused by kids. It stands to follow then that quite a few of them will try to molest kids in order to satisfy their sex drive the only way it can be sated. However, there are quite a few pedophiles who either never offend or are not offending at this time. They can often go for long periods without offending, especially if they get involved with a supportive group that tries to keep them from offending.
In quite a few cases, a sex offender who habitually offends against women will molest or try to molest a child. These men are not pedophiles; they are simply displaying the “versatility” that many sex offenders have.

Pedophilia Versus POCD Redux

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve had pure O my whole life. As a child it was both religion and contamination related. As I got older it turned into health and contamination related. (I became an atheist and stopped caring about intrusive anti-religious thoughts.)
But here’s where it gets a little tricky. When I was 10 years old and just discovering my sexuality, I noticed that I especially had a fondness for girls who were 5-7 years old. I knew this was much different than others my age, and felt quite guilty about it. I was also attracted to 10 year olds, however.
As I got older, every time I saw a cute little girl, I would avert my eyes and repeat to myself in my mind “I’m not a pedophile, I’m NOT a pedophile.” It felt very much like the intrusive thoughts from my OCD and happened constantly. This continued until around 16 years old.
At this point, I became interested in anime and the primary school aged characters in these shows. I talked to others who were interested in animated little girl characters also. At this point, I was still having intrusive thoughts, but being interested in the fictional characters didn’t bother me at all.
And then, in the same places where I was discussing these fictional characters, people would also often post pictures of elementary school girl models and actresses. I began masturbating to these photographs, but every time I would feel immensely guilty and hate myself for it.
Awhile later, I met a 6 year old girl. She began visiting us often. I just fell in love. In no other time in my life had I felt this way before. She was a joy to be around and extremely beautiful. We became very close, and I cared for her more than anything. After meeting her, all intrusive thoughts stopped and I accepted my attraction as normal for me.
I’m now in the my early 20s, and have very little interest in women. The pedophilic intrusive thoughts are no longer there, only the ones based on health worries and contamination remain.
I do have sexual thoughts about young girls, but I see them as normal for me now. Although when I see a cute girl that I’m interested in, it’s closer to crushing than lust. “Oh wow, she’s so beautiful.” The girls that I tend to like are between the ages of 5 and 11. They are just so cute.
Now, based on this information, do you think I have a pedophilic orientation? Or do you think it’s possible that I had POCD and just gave up fighting it?
A few things to consider: I would never touch a girl, I know it’s wrong.
It also has nothing to do with being dominant. I actually find the idea of dominating a young girl extremely disgusting.
It also is not only physical, I am extremely attracted to the personalities of very young girls, and just hanging out and playing games with them have been the best experiences I’ve ever had in my life.

This is a fascinating post. It shows that someone can have both OCD and pedophilia, so the notion that OCD’ers are too good or too moral to develop pedophilia is not correct.
Pedophilia in my opinion is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. It can’t be much changed like any of those. There are countless gay and bisexual OCD’ers. I know because I have talked to many of them. Surely there must be some OCD’ers with a pedophilic orientation.
It’s probably better for a pedophile to have OCD than to not have it. The OCD pedophile will be a lot less likely to act on his urges due to his extreme morality, guilt and conscientiousness. The OCD will act as an inhibitor towards acting on the pedophilia.
I am absolutely certain that he has pedophilia. There’s no way that he could possibly have POCD and just gave up fighting it. Though it shows that there are some similarities between POCD and true pedophilia, and this shows how differential dx is so difficult with these cases.
I am actually sorry to hear that he has no attraction to adult females, but perhaps this is his normal orientation. I wish he had an adult attraction so he could live and love happily and legally in our society. As is, his sex life may well be barren or solitary and his love life may be thwarted.
However, many pedophiles are absolutely happy with their orientation and love being this way. He seems like he is too. I am very glad to see that he is happy with his orientation and his sexual and love desires. I love to see people who are happy. I agree that him that he should not act on this orientation as it’s illegal.
If he ever wants to have a real sex life with a female or really fall legally in love with a female, he will need to expand his love map to include adults, though most pedophiles have no interest in doing this. In fact, many to most pedophiles say that even if there was a cure for pedophilia, they would not take the cure.
I also love females of all ages. I love females period. Little girls are wonderful in a special way as a special kind of female, though I see them as seeds of women rather than fully formed entities and I see women as the fully town product rather than girls that moved on.
But there’s a girl inside every woman, and a budding woman inside every girl. If you love females, you learn to love the sprouted seed of girl in the woman and the sprouting woman in the girl. In a way, they are one and the same – females at different stages.
I actually like teenage girls a lot more than little girls. Little girls seem ridiculous to me, and there’s little sexual attraction there. I had a world full of good and great times with teenage girls, often sexual, when I was young, and I think about those wonderful days all the time. When I see teenage girls, I reminisce. About the teenage girls that I knew and loved, who will live forever in my heart.
Though when I do meet a teenage girl nowadays, they seem silly to me, and I can’t see getting involved with them. I would not do it even if it was legal. But the teenage girl is definitely a special type of female – not a girl and not a woman. Not better than a woman or a girl but only different.
I probably like adult females 18+ best of all, since they are legal. I like teenage girls who are fully developed, around age 16-17 because to me that’s just a woman. But their immaturity is a massive turnoff. Even young women of college age often turn me off now because they seem to immature and silly.
A fully formed and mature woman is not only maximally attractive to me (all females age 16+ are maximally attractive to me) but her mind is also fully matured, and that is a massive turn-on to me as I get older. Sex and love is more than just a hot body you know. And the fully formed and fully matured woman has a joyous wonder and glory about her that is equal to if not superior to that the teenage girl and the girl. All the female maturational types are wonderful in their own special ways.

Interesting Comments on Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter writes:

Incest and friends of the family make up approximately 98% of all sex offenses (I think they mean child molestation and not rape, but I’m not sure). There has been estimated that 60 million individuals in this country that has experienced child sexual abuse. 50%, 30 million will go on to abuse a child. This is the crux of the problem, and we are not addressing it.Instead, law makers are creating laws that do more harm than good. For example:
The public registries: 98% of those come from the family and friends of the family. It is a fact, that once caught, 95% of them never repeat another sex crime. And that’s without therapy.
The remaining 5% are hiding in the registries. Those who did not know their victims, the violent rapists and the repeat offender.
And, approximately, 95% of all new sex offenses are committed by individuals NOT on the registries. Is it no wonder, because law makers have totally ignored the fact that Incest and friends of the family are the crux of the problem. There are 30 million abusers out there and lawmakers have done nothing to address prevention through education.
By ignoring incest and friends of the family, law makers have created a greater risk to children and society. If we do not openly discuss it, do not propose any educational models to better inform ourselves and keep ourselves afflicted with guilt and shame which washes over all concerned, perpetrators, victims, and other family members alike, we all help shield and perpetuate the crime.
These sex offender laws are being passed without advice of the experts. They are knee-jerk regulatory reaction which is just another way of saying, additional punishment is justified. Congress and the Legislatures have ignored the experts in the field.
But when it comes to light bulbs, they clamor for expert testimony. There is something very fundamentally wrong with their approach when it comes to sex offender laws.
Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team said, ”Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful — the laws as they are now.
“I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children,” he said. “They are doing more harm than good.”
US Department of Justice, 2003
• Sample size – 9,700 sex offenders
• Length of time – 3 years
• Re-offense trigger – reconviction (Doesn’t mean a new sex crime)
• Results – 5.3% sexual offense. 3.3% child molestation.
Arizona, Department of Corrections, 2006
• Length of time – Ten years
• Sample size – 2,444 sex offenders
• Results – 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense, 1.4% returned for a new felony case of child molestation
• Reoffense trigger – new conviction (Any conviction)
And there are many more studies and they have the same results. Low recidivism rates for first time sex offenses.
Law makers pass these laws as non-controversial. Without debate and there is nothing I can think of that is more controversial.
Constitutional rights are being side stepped and it has been said that when you deny the constitution to one, you deny it to everyone. Please, look at the real problem. Incest and friends of the family and Prevent through education. Do away with these draconian laws that protect no one but endangers every child.

I don’t really know what to say to any of this stuff. I don’t have much personal interest in it.
I’d be interested to see how these laws are endangering kids and doing more harm than good.
Surely life is often Hell for these sex offenders. And you can see here that these insane laws are being used against all sorts of 18-21 year old guys messing around with 15-17 year old girls. The guys are totally normal, and now their lives are fucked forever.
They’re on Sex Offender Lists, it’s hard to work anywhere, they go to jail and get threatened by other inmates as “pedos” (that’s weird, I figured most prison inmates would gladly fuck a 16 year old girl if they could get away with it). They can hardly live anywhere and often have to move back home.
Their career dreams are shot, and the military won’t take you (I guess fucking a 16 year old girl is evil, but actually killing human beings, albeit towelheads, is cool). Lots of guys are also going down due to lying little girls telling tall tales of fake molestations and teenage bitches screaming rape.
I thank God I’m not on one of those blasted lists! I have enough problems as it is; I couldn’t imagine what Hell my life would be if I was on one of those things.

What Do The "Psychos" Look Like?

Repost from the old site.
For about 25 years now, I’ve been hearing people tell me that so and so is a child molester, so and so is a psycho, so and so is a pervert, so and so is a predator, so and so looks like a rapist, so and so is a serial killer, or looks like a serial killer.
I’ve been checking these guys out the best I can for decades now, and not one of them has turned up dangerous yet. Every one I met was just a harmless neurotic.
I find this whole exercise bizarre. I really do want to know what the Hell a child molester looks like. People keep telling me that so and so looks like a child molester, but this makes no sense to me. Can someone tell me precisely what a child molester looks like?
Let me tell you geniuses something, all you clowns who think you can “spot the pedo.” Tell you what, idiots. You can’t. Not only that, you can’t even “spot the dangerous person.” I’d wager a lot of the folks everyone insists are such a menace are probably the most harmless people out there.
Take that notion, that you can “spot the pedo” or even “spot the dangerous people,” into the office of anyone who really knows what they are doing, say, a clinical psychologist, and they will laugh you right out of the office.
Mental health professionals will inform you that there is no way to “spot the pedo” or “spot the psycho” based on appearances. Furthermore, you’re going to get such a tidal wave of false positives that the whole exercise is absurd.
I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone who “looked like a child molester.” I’ve seen all sorts of guys who looked “weird” in one way or another, but I if I observe them for a while, I can usually figure out somewhat what’s going on with them mentally.
There’s weird-looking people everywhere in this world. I just give em the benefit of the doubt and move on. I don’t equate weird with “psycho,” “pedo,” “serial killer,” “rapist.” The world’s full of strange-looking people, but in most cases, they’re harmless. Plus I can actually read people pretty well.
I did meet one guy who “looked like a child molester,” but that was due to behavior, not appearance . I was teaching school at an elementary school in Compton in 1989 when I saw a guy parked in a van at lunch. He had long hair and an extremely strange, haunted look in his eyes.
And I swear to God I thought he was looking at the kids. It freaked me out so much that I got his license plate and called the cops. That’s the only “pedo” I’ve ever spotted, and I don’t even know if he was a pedo.
I’m even more mystified by what a rapist looks like. Way back in 1980, at age 22, I was coming out of a porn theater in downtown Long Beach very late at night, 1 AM.
Yeah, I used to go watch the porns back in the day. So fuck me, Puritans and feminazis.
Well, this movie was sick. The basic premise of it was rape. It consisted of a main character who wore gloves and a ski mask, and he was going around raping women. I didn’t really enjoy it. I think it was called “Obsession.”
I was coming out of the theater to the parking lot, and there was this young White guy, tough-looking, working class. He looked very, very angry. He was seething and looked like he was ready to kill. The energy was radiating off him like heat in a desert. He was wearing shorts and had a knife in a sheath on his waist. And he was coming out of a sick rape flick.
I don’t know if he “looked like a rapist,” but he didn’t seem like a very psychologically healthy young man, and I worried about what he might do in the future.
Other than that, “looking like a rapist” means nothing to me. There are dangerous looking characters all over the place, especially in working class White neighborhoods, Black ghettos and Hispanic barrios. I figure 50% of the Hispanic immigrant males walking around my neighborhood look like they’re capable of rape. Big deal.
I know one guy in the mountains who did time for rape of a child under age 14. He’s an Indian and hangs out in the library drawing pictures. He’s seriously anti-social and refuses to talk to anyone. He’s lived up there for 16 years, and he hasn’t re-offended. I knew the guy for a long time before I found out about his offense. I don’t think he “looks like a rapist.” I just think he looks like an antisocial asshole, that’s all.
Even more peculiar is the notion that someone “looks like a serial killer.” Wow. What does a serial killer look like anyway?
I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who “looked like a serial killer,” nor have I ever known any serial killers, nor have I ever known any killers period, and I wouldn’t know what they look like anyway. Do they look dangerous? The world is full of dangerous looking men, mostly younger men. Do they all “look like serial killers?”
I knew one of the local guys on the Sex Offender list here. He was on there for molesting a child under the age of 14. I don’t know the details. He’s kind of a sleazy-looking Mexican immigrant guy, but that describes about 50% of the Mexican guys in my neighborhood.
He worked at the local market, and I never thought there was anything wrong with him. In fact, I thought I was weird, and he was normal. Only later did I find the guy on the list.
I knew another guy who went down on a sex offender law. He lived in Oakhurst, California, and he was in his mid-30’s. He had really long hair – hippie type – and worked in a computer store. He was absolutely normal in every sense of the word. Once again, I thought he was normal, and I was weird.
He went down for “child molesting” – what he did was he shacked up with a 15 year old girl. He went down for 4 years or so. Now, they’d give him 10 or even 20 years. Not good judgment on his part, but whatever. They also found “child pornography” on his computer. In our Modern Bullshit World, that could very well have been naked pics of his 15 year old girlfriend.
For example, this fire inspector just got 20 years in prison (!?) for getting local 15 year old girls to pose nude for him. That’s called “production of child pornography.” I don’t call that “producing child pornography;” I call it “getting a teenage girl to pose naked and snapping pics.”
Incredibly, the judge says he’s a “pedophile,” and he will have to go on the stupid Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. I don’t call this guy a “pedophile” for taking pictures of naked 15 and 16 year old girls. That’s a perfectly healthy and normal desire for a male of any age. I do think that he broke the law and was stupid and careless.
Whether this stuff should be illegal, I’m not sure, but it ain’t worth no 20 years.
Studies show that all normal males have an extremely high, though not maximal, attraction for 14-15 year old girls. They have maximal attraction for 16 year old girls.
That is, they react as strongly to 16 year old girls as to females of any age 16+. The reaction to 15 year old girls is about 90% of maximum (still very high) and to 14 year old girls, it’s about 80% of maximum (still quite high). So it’s absolutely normal for males of any age to get really turned on by 14-16 year old girls. It’s not “pedophilia” or any of that crap. It’s just…normal.
Now, in our crazy modern world, guys over 24 at least need to be real careful about girls aged 14-16. Mess around with em, and you are likely to get pounded for 10 years, or even 20. So though your desires are normal, healthy, and certainly non-pedophiliac, it’s best to control yourself and not give in to temptation.
The whole crazy idea that we can “spot the sickos” is complete nonsense, but people believe it anyway. But it’s comforting. The notion that we can’t spot the psychos makes the world a pretty terrifying place.

Sex Offenders: Second Thoughts

Repost from the old site.
After I posted a couple of pieces on child molester mass hysteria, they got linked to some sex offender support groups and I got some comments. I started doing a lot more research, and I must say, I am not impressed with the sex offender support groups or their research. One of their favorite papers claims to show only 5% recidivism rate over 3 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, but apparently that’s fraudulent.
One good study did find a 25% recidivism rate after 15 years. This is the same study that the RSO (registered sex offender) supporters quote as having a 5% relapse rate. At that’s only for re-offenses.
While at Fresno State University in the early 1990’s, I did a ton of reading in journals. I liked the psychology journals a lot.
In one I found a study that used confidential interview procedures to determine the true rate of recidivism, because a lot of these guys reoffend and don’t get caught. Anyway, these guys can admit to molesting kids online or in an interview, and there’s usually nothing that can be done, since we don’t know who the victim is, when the crime occurred, etc.
That study found a re-offense rate (not a re-arrest rate) for child molesters of 50% over 25 years. I think that’s about right.
There’s tremendous debate about what constitutes pedophilia, but this site, Wikisposure, ought to give you a pretty good idea. It’s an anti-pedophile site set up the To Catch a Predator folks (Perverted Justice), and it profiles lots of sex offenders, most of whom are out and out pedophiles. Looking through the profiles gives you a pretty good idea of what these guys are all about.
I’m even listed in the “articles to be done” category, which is either scary or hilarious, since I signed a petition calling for reform of these crazy laws. So anyone who wants to go there and say a bunch of evil stuff about me, just get yourself an account and log on .
According to the FBI, a large number, possibly a majority of cases, are not committed by opportunistic non-pedophilic molesters, but by males who are actually pedophilic in one way or another. To what degree, I’m not sure, but most of those profiled at Wikisposure are obviously preferential molesters.
The sex offender propaganda says that 90% of molestations are just opportunistic crimes by non-pedophilic males. Apparently that’s just not true.
However, all normal heterosexual adult males are maximally attracted to females aged 16, 17 and up into adulthood, so I strongly disagree with calling men who have sex with these girls pedophiles or even sex offenders. It’s not called “pedophilia”; it’s called “fucking a teenage girl.”
All males also have very high, though not maximal, attraction to girls aged 14 and 15, so that’s not really abnormal or pedophilia either. Once you get into girls aged 13 and below, no adult of any age should be messing with them, period. They’re just too young, and at some point, it is out and out child molesting. However, I do not think that persons under age 18 having sex with a 13 year old is abnormal.
Main thing about pedophiles, if you look at Wikisposure, is that it’s obvious that the vast majority really don’t have much interest in adults. A few do, but those are the minority. What turns em on is kids, and they usually have a preferential AoA, or age of attraction . It’s usually phrased something like, “My AoA is 6-11.”
A few of these guys are completely out and well-known in the community. Some have admitted to molesting kids and just got away with it. That’s not enough to arrest or convict someone. A number of the older ones are roaming around the world. Mexico seems to be a favorite place. Boylovers do seem to dramatically outnumber the girllovers, despite the gay rights protestations.
I’m very sympathetic to teens going down for consensual sex and to young men aged 18-21 going down for sex with girls 14-17. The Romeo and Juliet cases are the most tragic of all. I’m also sympathetic to guys aged 21-29 going down sex with girls aged 15-17. The latter is surely illegal, and you’re a fool if you do it, but whatever it is, it’s not pedophilia.
I would prefer to see the age of consent lowered to 15 for both sexes.
For 14 year olds, sex with 14-21 year olds should be legal. Adults having sex with those 13 and under would be a crime. For 13 year olds, sex with 13-17 yr olds should be legal. These are Romeo and Juliet cases.
I’m primarily opposed to the conflation of this sort of sex with actual pedophilia and child molesting.
I also find the whole Child Molester Mass Hysteria thing very alarming. People are being accused of being child molesters merely because others regard them as odd or eccentric, for trying to make pleasant conversation with teenage girls, even when the girls have jobs that require them to interface with the public, or for ogling older attractive teenage girls.
These people have not been convicted or accused of any sex crimes whatsoever, and these are the most tragic cases of all. It’s normal to try to talk to anyone who has a job interfacing with the public. All normal males are attracted to pretty 16-17 year old females. In this way, utterly normal behavior is insanely conflated with “child molesting” by a puritanical, man-hating public.
Teens trading naked pics of themselves on videophones are going down on child porn trafficking charges. 15 year old girls take crotch shots of their pussies and send them to 18 year old males, and the guy goes down on child porn charges.
How bout the girl? One thing I noticed about all this stuff above: it’s always the boy who goes down, never the little teenage slut running to the cops. Some justice.
Nor do I think pics of naked 14-17 yr old girls, having sex or not, is the same thing as “child porn”. I imagine your average male would like to look at something like that. But please, if any of you guys out there have any such pics on your computer, get rid of them. Society has gone insane about this stuff these days.
I still think that the residence and lifestyle restrictions for these guys is absurd. Screw a 15 year old girl, and you can never be in any place where “children” are present! That means Starbucks. That means the supermarket. That means anywhere. What a bunch of police state bullshit. GMAB.
I think Perverted Justice, which puts real adults behind fake profiles of mostly 13-15 year old girls, is silly. Most of these guys aren’t “pedophiles” anyway. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his 20’s.
They arrange a meeting with the guy, the guy shows up, and he gets busted, and he never bopped any girl, and there was no girl anyway. The guy gets 3-16 years (WTH?) in prison. Entrapment anyone? Adult males, don’t talk sex to teenage girls on the Net. Don’t go meet them for sex. There are traps everywhere.
But I’m not particularly sympathetic to guys who committed what I consider actual sex offenses. You guys messed up, and a lot of you have got a problem. You need to get it under control, quit blaming the victims, and try hard to make sure you don’t do that again. Yeah, it’s a witch hunt, but there’s also a bunch of twisted idiots out there we need to watch, and a bunch of others who fucked up bad and need to clean up or else.

Another View of Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter answers my question, “Can you all please explain to me why these new laws are making these worse, and endangering kids even more? That doesn’t seem to add up from the data that you have given to me.”
Magister:

The experts tell us that offenders need stability, a home, a job, a support system and a feeling of connection to a community. Stress affects offending behavior. If one feels helpless and hopeless it, of course, increases stress levels to an unbelievable amount.
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of studies looking at offending behavior and the conditions and circumstances predating it. America has a world record amount of people in prison. It is like a revolving door.
It does not take much imagination to realize that if you warehouse people in a prison with people even worse than they are, in an antisocial environment, release them back to a society where they have no home or job, their offending behavior is likely to occur again.
Now, add to that, for sex offenders the fact that they are dehumanized by society, called garbage, monsters, they are being killed, beaten, their families are shunned, their children are picked on mercilessly, they have to pay an exorbitant amount of fines for probation, sex offender treatment, GPS monitoring, all while greatly restricted on what kind of job they have.
Many states are now putting their employers on the Registry which pretty much guarantees that no one will hire them. Residency restrictions make it almost impossible to find a place to live. NIMBY is rampant. When they do find a small area to live in, a great hue and cry goes up about “clustering” and the problem starts all over again.
They are denied many of the social services that our other poor citizens have. They are not even allowed in a hurricane shelter!
I would think being treated like a monster, told over and over again that you are a monster, would make any person likely to commit desperate acts. It amazes me that in the present circumstances, there ares not more re-offenses than there are. I think the fact that re-offense is still low, shows just how repentant the vast majority of these people are.
There is not one study that shows that residency restrictions work, not one. In fact there are multiple studies that show that they do not work. Again it just takes common sense to tell you that if a person is going to re-offend they are going to go away from their home, the area they are most likely to be recognized, to offend.
Studies prove this out. Several states, which bothered to listen to the experts and do comprehensive studies of their own, declined to implement residency restrictions.
Iowa, which has statewide 2000 ft restrictions, is a perfect example. The prosecutors ‘association and the sheriffs’ association have come out against these restrictions. They see that they do no good, and have caused many offenders to abscond because of the conditions.
The police and parole officers cannot find the homeless men and women. So instead of allowing for increased monitoring of those who are most dangerous, there is less monitoring of everyone.
But the people of Iowa, who have been fed false information like everyone else will not allow these restrictions to be stopped. That just boggles my mind.
Everything that the experts tell us reduces re-offense, we do the opposite. We stubbornly hold on to our misinformation like a life raft in the ocean. It is like we need a group of people to hate and denigrate.
Most states have expanded the definition of crimes to be called a sex offense until almost anyone could fit into the category. The registries are so watered down by no risk, low risk offenders until our law enforcement cannot keep up. The state of California just did a recidivism study that mirrored the one the Department of Justice did. They got the same results. Re-offense rate overall between 3.5 and 5%.
The American people do not know this! Either that or they stubbornly refuse to believe it. Yes, there are groups or types of offenders who have a much higher rate of re-offense. We have experience and tests to know which ones these are.
To me, that means that those who are not in any of those high risk groups have almost no risk of re-offending and even the high risk groups have a lower rate of re-offense than other types of criminals. Treatment does work. Treatment has been refined over the years and there is a success rate of over 40%. Some studies show success in the 90% range.
When all our attention and resources are being focused on once caught offenders we are developing a false sense of security and ignoring the 90% of the population that are the next molesters of our children. Who are they? They are family and friends who are not on the registry. We are not learning how to recognize warning signs and keeping our eyes focused on the Registry.
What a disservice we are doing our children. Victim advocacy groups and child protection groups, are saying the same things, residency restrictions and making monsters of these people do more harm than good.
Victim advocacy groups are getting involved in creating transitional housing and mentoring for the higher risk offenders. This is how we create a lower recidivism rate. It only makes sense. This is such a complicated issue that one could talk for hours and not make a dent in the truth and the harm our society is doing.
All I can say is the Internet is a fount of information. Studies from the professionals and our own government can be found just by Googling. You can find many studies here .

I don’t really know what to say about all this. This isn’t exactly my favorite subject, but the purpose of this blog is to piss people off, and nothing pisses people off more than being soft on pedos. Obviously, it’s a position I just have to take. It’s just too irresistible.
I’ve noticed that if you know anything about pedophilia and child molesting, as I do, people get really, really worried and think you must be one. It’s like if you know anything about homosexuality, you must be a fag. If you know about heroin, you must shoot dope. If not now, you’re going to do one of these things in the future.
The only thing you can say about child molesting in polite company is “Kill all the pedos!”
I got most of my information from John Douglas’ books and writings. I figure if he can get interested in this stuff from a criminological point of view without going out and molesting kids, hey, so can I.
I don’t think we are going to get anywhere as a society with this issue as long as all rational conversations about it are shut down with a horrified look of, “You’re not a pedo yourself, are you!?”
If it’s true that 90% of child molesting is a family member or friend of the family, that 90% of those on the Registries are this type of molester, that’s very interesting. The 60 million molested figure and 50% of them (30 million) are going to do it themselves is fascinating. The notion that residency restrictions don’t work and may do more harm than good and that only 5% re-offend over 10 years is also fascinating.
It’s important to distinguish between pedophiles and non-pedophilic child molesters. Non-pedophilic molesters are probably the vast majority. They have no particular interest in kids; they are just opportunists who do it for various reasons.
Probably 10% of molesters are real pedophiles. These guys either prefer or require kids to get off. Some may never act on it, but I bet most will. These people will be impossible to cure. All you can do is get them to not act on their urges, and that may be quite difficult. The conflation of pedophilic molesters with non-pedophilic molesters is unfortunate and makes no sense scientifically or societally.

Transcript of My Latest Interview on Voice of Reason Radio

This runs pretty long – it runs to 48 pages on the Net – so be forewarned. In case you didn’t listen to it, here it is. The audio is here, with some comments, mostly silly as usual.

Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing something a little bit different. The topic tonight is The War on Men. Robert, I’ve just got to say that you’ve gotten a lot of slack for some of your views on this show.

Robert Lindsay: That’s true. I’m going a little easy on the Jews I guess.

Robert Stark: Kevin MacDonald uses the term, “a hostile elite” to refer to the elite, and he’s talking about the Jews, but you could say that the whole elite in general is dangerous when it has no loyalty to the nation-state whatsoever.

Robert Lindsay: The multinational corporations – and these White people in America, they love these corporations so much – they are a hostile elite. The elite is not just the Jews in America, it’s these hundreds of millions of very wealthy people – of rich people – all over the world. They are hostile not just to Americans but they’re hostile to their own people. They’re only out for themselves, and they’re sending the whole world down the tubes really.

You see, every one of them will sell out their own country. The elite of India will sell out India. The elite of Pakistan will sell out Pakistan. They will all sell their own countries down the tubes.

Robert Stark: I don’t think the elite in Israel has really sold out their country. That would be the one exception.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are patriotic in a sense I suppose. But what these elites will do is they will ruin their countries’ economies in the name of getting richer. They don’t care about their own country’s economy.

Robert Stark: The people who call themselves patriots, they often defend these sorts of people.

Robert Lindsay: The patriots, you mean the Tea Party types?

Robert Stark: Yes.

Robert Lindsay: The Tea Parties are simply an arm of the corporations. The Tea Partiers really are rootless cosmopolitans. They’re effectively all “Jews” if you want to put it that way. They’re a Judaized people; they’re infected with the Jewish spirit.

Robert Stark: Yes, Sarah Palin, she made some comments that she considered herself to be a Jew, and she has an Israeli flag in her office, and she’s the leader of the Tea Party movement.

Robert Lindsay: Sarah Palin is a Jew! All the Tea Partiers are Jews! And they’re also shilling for the multinational corporations too, so if you think about it, the Tea Parties are just the forward movement of these multinationals. They’re like the army of the multinationals, and they’re also shilling for the elite. They’re like this Brownshirt White army for the richest people in America, and I just fail to see how that’s a progressive working class movement in any way, shape or form, forget it.

Robert Stark: Yes, it’s definitely been co-opted. But let’s move on to our issue for tonight, the War on Men. So can you introduce us to our topic and talk about how feminism has really changed our society? You support equity feminism, but you are critical of the movement in a lot of other ways. You are saying that it has really destroyed marriage.

Robert Lindsay: It has in a way because we used to have mandatory marriage in America, and in most societies have mandatory marriage or especially mandatory early marriage. And what happens with mandatory early marriage is that just about everyone gets married in their early 20’s or so, and that takes care of the sexual problem. Here in the US, everyone got married, everyone. And then, in marriage, apparently, there was sex, I guess, or there was or there wasn’t – many women didn’t like it that much, but back then, I think they just put up with it.

And back then, most men got plenty of sex in marriage, or at any rate, there wasn’t a big issue about guys being sexually frustrated. You’ve got the Alphas, that’s like 15% of the guys, those are the guys who get all the women, and even they all got married. You’ve got the Betas, that’s like 70% of the guys, they all got married too.

Robert Stark: Yes, it was sort of like sexual socialism. You can talk about wealth, but when it comes to the mating market, it’s a zero-sum game, because there is one person of the opposite sex for every person of the other sex, and with marriage, you can distribute that evenly.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly. It is sexual socialism. There’s also a group called the Omegas. There are the Betas, who are like 70%, and they are just the ordinary guys, and then there are the Omegas, who are like 15%, and they are essentially getting no women at all. In the old days, even these Omegas would find a woman, maybe who was not all that attractive. These guys who nowadays are total losers with women, back then, they all got married!

Robert Stark: So they would marry a woman in their own league.

Robert Lindsay: Right.

Robert Stark: What’s happening now is that with the destruction of marriage, we are reverting back to caveman times when we had more of a polygamous society. The idea is that women are hypergamous, and they go for men who are above their status. Whereas biologically, women can only have a limited number of children, men can impregnate large numbers of women, so men want to impregnate as many women as possible.

I think in the past before feminism, women were not allowed to work. Women do have an advantage over men in the mating market. So in a society where men controlled the wealth, that sort of evened things out because women were dependent on men for money. Now, middle and upper class women have good jobs, and lower class women are taken care of by the welfare state, so they don’t really need men anymore. So we are reverting back to this really primitive system.

Robert Lindsay: If you study primitive agricultural societies in Africa and New Guinea, what you find is polygamous societies. You find the head man thing. African Blacks evolved in this polygamous society. There’s a Head Man and maybe his buddies – they get all the women. And then, a whole lot of the rest of the guys, apparently, they don’t get any. So with the African Blacks, they’ve evolved for 9,000 years with these Head Man type guys impregnating all the women, and so Blacks have gotten bigger and stronger, with high testosterone, etc.

Robert Stark: That’s probably a factor in why there is so much crime and violence in their societies because if they can’t have a woman and reproduce, they have no incentive to contribute anything to society, so they all just become criminals, and that’s probably why there is such a high rate of sex crime in Africa.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not sure if the setup is like that anymore, with the Head Man thing, but the thing is they’ve evolved this big huge super-athletic bodies over time because it’s only been the most macho, masculine, roughest, toughest and most high testosterone man has been impregnating most of the women for like 9,000 years and so what we’ve ended up with is that Blacks have high testosterone, they’re really big, strong and aggressive because they’re all descended for 9,000 years from the biggest, baddest, roughest, toughest guy around.

Robert Stark: One of the main problems in the Black community, what happened was, in the past, even though they were poor, there was some level of decency because there was an incentive for Black men to go out and get a job in order to get a woman, recently what happened was the Great Society came in with the welfare state, and Black women were dependent on the government, so there was no incentive for the men to be decent.

And then their culture glorifies being a thug and a criminal. It’s seen a lot with rap culture, but it goes back a lot further than that. Well, the women favor the men who are criminals. So the whole system is subsidizing criminal behavior, and there’s no incentive to be decent anymore if you want to get a mate.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m a liberal, so I don’t agree with that analysis of the Great Society. I think the Great Society was a great thing. Furthermore, welfare was put in by FDR in the mid-30’s – AFDC. So we had welfare all through the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and early 1960’s, and hardly anyone was on it because everybody had a job.

But it looks like what happened was the jobs all took off in the industrial areas of the North. All those Blacks had moved up to there to those cities, and then the factories started shutting down, and then the Blacks were out of work, and apparently the women started going on welfare. Welfare has always been there.

Robert Stark: You’re right that the best manufacturing jobs have all gone overseas. Then you have the sexual revolution, and men were lied to, like Playboy Magazine sold that idea to men that the sexual revolution would benefit them, but that turned out to be a total lie. You were at your prime during that era back in the 1970’s. Can you go over some of the trends that you saw and what it was like back then?

Robert Lindsay: Back then, that was the sexual revolution that we were growing up with, and there weren’t many sexual diseases. I think Herpes wasn’t really around that much. The worst STD seemed to be crabs. I never knew anyone who was catching anything other than that one. A lot of people were having a lot of sex. I went to a White high school, and all the girls were on the pill, every single one of them. Not one White girl at my school had a baby.

There were pregnancies – one of my girlfriends got pregnant, but it wasn’t me. It was some other guy. They would automatically have an abortion. Back then there was not much controversy about abortion, and the anti-abortion people were not around so much like they are now. If girls were pregnant, they automatically got an abortion, no ifs ands or buts about it.

We had a White society there and a White point of view, and where I was growing up, for a White high school girl to have a kid out of wedlock, that was like the lowest, worst, most disgusting thing you could possibly do. You were thought to be acting like a Black or a Mexican, and you just weren’t supposed to do that. So we had no girls with babies at my high school. There was a lot of screwing around back then, it’s true. This was the hippie era, and it was free love. I suppose there were guys that didn’t have a lot of fun, but I did.

Robert Stark: But you see the destruction of marriage as a negative trend?

Robert Lindsay: It has been, because that whole hippie free love thing seems to have gone out, and now, it’s been replaced by a sort of a consumerist sexual culture, and women have reverted back to Cavewoman tendencies. Now that we’ve gotten rid of marriage, and women can survive on their own, women don’t need men anymore. See, back in the old days, women needed men to survive.

So a woman would hook up with a guy, and the guy would support her, and she’d have kids by the guy. The truth is, she stuck around with him for the support. And in return for the support, she gave him sex. It was a trade-off. The guy was satisfied. He was getting the sex, love and companionship of marriage, and the woman was also satisfied, she was getting support and then the love and companionship of marriage.

And now, women can have sex, have babies and raise children. That’s what the single Mom’s are all about. They don’t need men to support them anymore, so they’re simply not marrying.

And so what you have is we are reverting back to Cavewoman times. In Cavewoman times, the Alphas get all the women. It was Head Man times, just like in Africa and New Guinea. The Alphas are 15% of all guys, and all the women want them.

He’s The Man With the Golden Sperm. He’s the guy with the best genes. See, women think biologically. At a very subconscious level, they all want the guy who has the best genes. They all want to have his baby, to have his kid and pass on his superior genes. Even if they are on the birth control pill, and they are not going to be having any babies, they are still thinking that way.

I mean, I knew guys in junior college…my idol in junior college, he would have say 3 or 4 dates in a day. He would have a morning date, then an afternoon date, then an evening date, then at midnight, he would climb into some girl’s window at her parent’s house. And he would have sex with all of them. And this was how he lived. And every girl and woman wanted this guy. They were basically lining up outside of his door, and it was like take a number. They would have sex with him, and they would walk out of the door with a big smile on their face, and they were quite satisfied.

He used to live on the beach in the summer, and those guys would go through like 3 different girls or women every single day. They would have a keg of beer, an ounce of Thai weed, and they would surf all day. That’s the environment that I grew up in on the beach in Southern California with a bunch of hippie stoner surfers.

Robert Stark: What effect do you see this having on society if as you say, a large portion of men are being kept out of the mating market? Society could collapse. For instance, that guy Sodini, I think he had psychological problems, but his situation is symbolic of this phenomenon. If you look at what’s happening in China, how there is this huge shortage of women in China, and you see rising crime there and other problems that this is leading to, due to the shortage of women. This could be problematic in the future if this trend continues.

Robert Lindsay: They are having a lot of Sodini-type mass killings over there too. A lot of these guys apparently are not married and not getting any women, and they’re going crazy with bulldozers, tractors, guns and knives and whatnot and mass murdering people. Just like Sodini. Probably because they aren’t getting any. Back in my parents’ generation, Sodini would have gotten married. There were no Sodinis, not really anyway.

So what’s going on nowadays is that these 15% of the Alphas, they are monopolizing all of the best women. And every woman now wants an Alpha. You see, when you get rid of marriage, then you take the brakes off. When you have institutionalized marriage, women still want an Alpha, but they realize that they can’t get one, and they all have to get married anyway. So they settle for a Beta or an Omega when they are 23 years old, and that’s the way it goes. But now that there’s no marriage, women are free to become Cavewomen. And they all want the Alphas.

Robert Stark: Some of them will settle for a regular guy when they are past their prime. In a sense, who wants someone else’s leftovers?

Robert Lindsay: So now they all want Alphas. At least the White women that I see around here, they are all looking for the Alphas. And the Alphas, they are all pretty much taken. And by age 30 or so, the Alphas are all just gone. And these women, they don’t want Betas. So you have all of the best women going for say 15% of the guys. And the Betas, they’re not really getting all that much. And the Omegas, these guys are just getting zero. The Omegas are the guys who are just not attractive to women at all. These are the Sodinis. So you have 15% of guys, the Omegas, who are getting absolutely zero.

Robert Stark: What’s ironic about this is that the feminists got rid of sexual socialism, and in other ways, the feminists aligned themselves with socialism economically, but at the same time, they don’t want the real free market to work in terms of sex. I know a lot of people have moral issues with prostitution, I can understand that. I’ve had concerns too, but with the current situation, I think it would be the fair thing to legalize prostitution but only based on the current situation.

Another thing, the feminist Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, she co-introduced this bill with this neocon Senator Sam Brownback which would make it difficult for men to find wives from overseas. So they use socialism and get rid of the free market in certain cases where it suits their agenda. So you don’t have a problem with feminism if it’s about gender equity. But they use the government to rig the system when it suits their own interests.

Robert Lindsay: Well, the problem is that radical feminism has become Female Rule. You can probably never have true equality in a society sexually. It’s probably the case that you either have Male Rule or you have Female Rule. And there are a lot of problems with Male Rule, which is Patriarchy, but at least it seems to work. It’s not very fair to women in a lot of ways. But it’s a zero-sum game.

Robert Stark: It’s the same with race relations. I think that very rarely will you ever have true racial equality. One group will always end up dominating the other. That’s just human nature.

Robert Lindsay: It seems that way. If the men don’t rule, then the women are going to rule. And that’s the way it is in relationships. I’ve concluded that in relationships, the man has to dominate the woman. I came out of the 1970’s, and we were into this hazy gender role thing, and we were all supposed to be androgynous, and we were the New Men and the Feminist Men. And we were into not being macho and all that.

Thing is, that stuff doesn’t really work, because women do seem to want a macho guy who takes charge and who frankly dominates them. Women get off on being dominated. They enjoy it. That’s an essential part of their sexual nature. The man must be the dominant partner, and the woman must be the submissive partner in marriage or in any kind of a sexual relationship or love relationship.

If you don’t wear the pants in the relationship, she’s going to take those pants right off of you and put them on herself. Either the man dominates the woman, or the woman dominates the man. And if you look around at marriages and relationships, you notice that that’s how it works. If the guy doesn’t dominate the woman – if he’s a really wimpy guy – have you ever noticed that the woman ends up playing the male role and dominating him. Then you have these situations where the woman is playing the role of the man and being really nasty to the guy and lording it over him and the guy being all cringing and wimpy.

Robert Stark: The social conservatives haven’t really tackled any of these issues. The problem with them is that they the two issues that they are obsessed with are abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a symbolic issue – it doesn’t have any really strong negative effect on society. As far as abortion goes, I know that you are pro-choice…

Robert Lindsay: Definitely!

Robert Stark: The thing is that women no longer have responsibility, and they can be promiscuous and not depend on a man. Social conservatives focus on these two issues, but they are not really offering any alternatives. Then we have the conservative feminists. For instance, I believe that Sarah Palin calls herself a conservative feminist. They want the men to go back to being chivalrous and be the traditional men, but then the women will enjoy the perks that liberal feminism has brought them.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they want it both ways, don’t they? Equity feminism is a good thing. I want equality for women in all of the important ways. I’m on the mailing list for many of the big feminist organizations in the US. I used to be a member of NOW.

The only thing that I don’t like about these organizations is that they’ve been taken over by radical feminists. And a lot of them are lesbians; a lot of them hate men. And there’s a real animus in this movement against male sexuality, towards what it means to be male. What they prefer is female sexuality. There are two types of sexuality. There’s female sexuality, and there’s male sexuality. I don’t really have to define them. Every guy around knows what male sexuality is.

Robert Stark: You’ve defined the War on Men as a War on Male Sexuality.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly, because females want female sexuality to be the dominant paradigm in society. Female society is ruled by female sexuality. That’s what females want; that’s what their lives are ruled by. Male society is ruled by male sexuality.

And typically, male sexuality has been privileged at least somewhat in society as far as our rules go. And most societies tend to be more or less dominated by male sexuality. On the other hand, most societies tend to temper male sexuality by instituting early marriage because if you totally allowed male sexuality to take over, most guys probably wouldn’t even get married.

But the feminist movement attempts to make female sexuality the dominant paradigm for all of society, for all of public space. So all males must live under the rules of female sexuality.

That’s why they hate what they call the exploitation of women in porn, in advertising. Any advertisement that shows a sexy girl in any way whatsoever is evil according to them because that represents male sexuality. To them, male sexuality is all about the objectification and the use and abuse of women. For instance, porn is all about the objectification of women and the use and abuse of women, and to guys, it’s just sex, that’s all it is. Porn is all about getting off.

Female sexuality hates pornography, they hate erotica, they hate any sexuality at all being displayed in the media, in advertising, or in movies or TV. They want a completely desexualized public space. They want to desexualize the media, advertisements, consumer culture, movies and TV. Female sexuality is basically puritanical!

Robert Stark: That’s true, but if you look at our popular culture, it has gotten a lot more sexualized over the years, so we have these contradictory factors in our society. But one thing that you have been talking about is this mass hysteria where all men are being viewed as potential sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, that’s right. The radical feminists – that’s their thing. Male sexuality is all about rape! And males are all about rape, and we are all rapists. And they can’t stop talking about rape. You talk to these radical feminists, and they’re just rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape. And these are White women! And their claim is that the men who are the rapists are White guys like you and me. Well, if you know much about rape in this country, White guys like you and me, we don’t run around raping women.

Robert Stark: I don’t know what the statistics are, but Blacks are about 13% of the population, and they commit almost ½ of the rapes in the country.

Robert Lindsay: All I know is that they commit rape at about 6 times the White rate.

Robert Stark: So you are trying to say that a lot of the propaganda that they put out is to try to show White men as being sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: The feminist movement never talks about the fact that Blacks and Latinos are six times more likely to rape a woman than a White man is. Their whole thing is that White men like you and me are these evil sexual predator rapists. And their definition of rape keeps on expanding and expanding. Now, if you have sex with a woman who is intoxicated in any way whatsoever, I suppose if she even has one glass of wine, if she’s high, if she smoked a joint, if she did a line of coke or speed or if she’s on acid, then that’s rape.

Well, then there must be hundreds of millions of instances of rape occurring every week in this country. Because lots of women are having sex when they are intoxicated. And I simply do not believe that that’s rape.

Robert Stark: So you think that they are promoting a lot of these false accusations.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, and to them, any kind of coercion that leads to sex, especially verbal coercion, really, seduction itself…The feminists are now claiming that seduction itself is rape because the seducers are supposedly brainwashing women and tricking and fooling them into bed. Well, that’s what seduction is all about. Seduction is all about brainwashing women and tricking and fooling women, casting a spell on them, and more or less lying to them, in order to get them into bed. And men have been doing this for 100’s, or probably 1000’s of years.

And the whole idea of being a woman…mothers and fathers are supposed to raise their daughters with the idea that guys are just dogs, they’re no good. Guys will say and do anything to get you into bed. And an aware and savvy woman knows that guys are like this, she’s aware of it, and she’s got all of her defenses up to keep this guy from putting one over on her and seducing her and getting her into bed when she doesn’t want to.

So, seduction is not rape. Seduction is just the normal human way of going about sex, and it’s normal male sexuality to seduce women. So when they say seduction is rape, they’re saying that all us guys are rapists. And most radical feminists theorists, not just Andrea Dworkin or Katharine McKinney, but really all of them, they all say that we live under a system of patriarchy, and under patriarchy, all male-female sex is rape.

Robert Stark: Another thing is that they vilify large age ranges in relationships such as an older man dating a younger woman. One thing that I noticed is that Alphas can get good-looking younger women early on, but other men who are not Alphas can build up their wealth and get them later on. Historically, women would often marry a much older man because they were dependent on them economically.

Robert Lindsay: Another thing about female sexuality is that women age quicker than men. They live longer than we do. I don’t know why it is, but if you have a woman and a man, and they’re both married, and they’re both around 50-60 or so, the woman is going to look 10-15 years older than the man.

Robert Stark: Women have a huge advantage in their 20’s, but once they get past 30, men have the advantage. That’s why the feminists are trying to pathologize men who are dating women who are much younger than they are.

Robert Lindsay: This has been going on forever and ever and ever. If you read literature all down through the centuries or even millennia, the theme over and over is that a man, as he’s aging, continues to want younger women. And an older woman has a hard time keeping her husband around because as she starts getting into her 40’s and 50’s, he starts wanting to chase younger women.

So one of the prime aspects of female sexuality is this hatred for this aspect of male sexuality in that aging males want to chase young women. And it’s hard for an older woman to keep her man around. How do you keep him around? And in many cases, middle-aged men leave their older wives and go for young women. And women hate that; female sexuality hates that, so feminism hates that. And that’s the reason for this law that Maria Cantwell and Brownback passed…is it Brownback?

Robert Stark: Sam Brownback is this social conservative…

Robert Lindsay: Right, so what’s going on is that American guys who’ve just had it up to here with nasty Western women are heading off to the 3rd World, and they are picking up younger 3rd World women, and they are marrying them.

Robert Stark: What’s really strange about this is that Cantwell and Brownback and both very much pro-immigration Open Borders types.

Robert Lindsay: Cantwell represents female sexuality, she represents feminism, actually radical feminism and the rage of feminists and aging women over the fact that a lot of White guys are shining on these nasty feminist witches here in America, and they’re going to get women overseas. And also middle aged guys are blowing off their older White spouses and going to get some young hottie overseas. This is all just about – “cut off the competition.”

And it’s the institutionalization of female sexuality in law. This is one of the things that the feminists are tying to do – they are trying to make law and the legal code that we all live under in our public space to be an institutionalization of female sexuality.

Robert Stark: Yet at the same time, they got rid of marriage, which was a fair form of socialism. I’ve analyzed these various movements, not just the feminist movement but also various economic movements, and it’s way too complex to say that this person is a capitalist and this person is a socialist if people pick and choose either free markets or government intervention when it suits their own interests. That’s why I object to these people who break everyone up into, “You’re either for free markets or you’re not.”

Robert Lindsay: And the sexual harassment thing, this is another one. The feminist movement, as I noted, wants to remove all sexuality from the pubic space because female sexuality hates sexual expression in the public space. If you’re a good-looking woman, apparently as soon as you walk outside the door, you have guys after you all day long. And women don’t like this. Female sexuality doesn’t like this hyper-aggressive nature of male sexuality in which we are always raping them with our eyes and chasing after them and all.

What they would really like, in their female sexual utopia, is to ban us from looking at them, they would like to have us arrested and sent to jail for “illegal looking.”

Robert Stark: This was targeted against pedophiles, but there was a law in Maine making it a felony for adults to stare at minors in public. I think what the radical feminists – I think the woman who introduced that law was a radical feminist – what they would like is to make it a crime to men to stare at adult women in public as well. So this looks like a slippery slope.

Robert Lindsay: This is one of the aspects of sexual harassment. Now, if you’re in a workplace, or even outside of a workplace, you can be accused of sexual harassment just for looking at women. A friend of mine, he’s an older guy, and he was in a coffee shop, and the young women didn’t like the fact that he was an older guy and he was looking at them so they complained, and the management told him to quit looking at the girls or they were going to throw him out.

So it’s not just happening in the workplace, although in the workplace, if you look at the women too much, if you check out the women, they call that sexual harassment and a “sexually hostile workplace.” I think they also want to remove all sexual commentary, sexual banter, sexual wording and flirtation from the public space.

But after all, people have a very strong sex drive, at least males, and the entirety of public space is where we spend most of our time. We go out in public all the time doing this or that, and the workplace is a large part our lives now, a lot of us are spending almost all of our time at work. And female sexuality and radical feminism wants to completely remove all sexual expression from the public space, where we are spending so much of our time.

I don’t think they even want us talking to women, honestly. They certainly don’t want us talking to them about anything sexual in any way whatsoever. For women, to remove all sexuality from the pubic space makes that a friendly space.

But I came out of 1970’s, remember, I came out of the hippie movement, I’m a liberal, I came out of the New Left, I’m a sexual revolutionary and a libertine. And I don’t believe in any kind of Puritanism at all. My attitude is, “Do it in the streets.” Not literally of course, but I’m very pro-sex. And it really bothers me how anti-sex the feminists are. And that they are trying to reproduce their view of female sexuality, which is very anti-sex, it’s very puritanical, onto the whole of society.

Robert Stark: What is strange is that if you look at some aspects of our society, they have become much more sexualized. If you look at commercials…I really don’t know what to make of the whole thing.

Robert Lindsay: This is strange, the extreme sexualization of our society – although the feminists would love to get rid of all that too, but they haven’t been able to yet…on the one hand, we have this hypersexualized society…

Robert Stark: One thing I’ve also noticed if that teen sexuality has been really glorified, like teenage girls, one the one hand, they are encouraged to act slutty, but on the other hand, if a man so much as looks at a teenage girl nowadays, they are being called pedos. So what do you think of these two polar extremes?

Robert Lindsay: Well, on the one hand, you have this hypersexualized media space in terms of advertising and consumer culture and the corporations and then in our popular entertainment…

Robert Stark: Yes, because sex sells, they want to make money.

Robert Lindsay: Music, TV, movies and all that, the sexual mores have been loosened down. So if you’re a person who is immersed in our consumer and entertainment culture, you are being bombarded with sexual messages all day long. And after a while, it’s probably going to make you pretty horny. If you’re a young man, you’re probably pretty horny as it is, but all this media sex stuff really gets you thinking about sex all the time.

And then as soon as you step out your front door and go out into the public space, now you’re out in this feminist world where the feminists are trying to put their Female Rule (matriarchy) over everything, and you can’t look at women, you can’t talk to women, you can’t say anything sexual, you can’t do anything sexual…

Robert Stark: What are some of your thoughts on the racial component of the dating market?

Robert Lindsay: Well, like I said, the White women, they all want an Alpha guy. And then by the time they’re 30, almost all of them, they didn’t get him, and so they’re angry. And then they either hook up with a Beta, and they’re not really all that happy about it, and they try to dominate him, and they’re aggressive and mean towards him. Or they get married, and then they get divorced at some point.

For instance, I have a Yahoo group for people who are fighting the Internet love scammers. The group is about ½ women. Most of the women are middle aged White women, and a very large % of these women are involved with Black men. What I did not understand for a long was that these women are filled with rage and hatred towards White men.

We’re macho pigs, we’re jerks…and they are filled with hatred towards male sexuality. We don’t treat them right, we’re mean, macho jerks. And all of them are radical feminists. And then at the same time…they’re all going for Black guys! And I didn’t understand that at all!

Robert Stark: The Black men would probably treat them a lot worse than a White man would.

Robert Lindsay: They will treat them a lot worse! But I finally figured it out, and I finally understand it. These White women who are going for Black guys, it’s a way of giving the finger to the White man. It’s a way of saying “F- you” to the White man, screw you to the White man. That’s the ultimate way of insulting a White man. Saying, “The heck with you, White men, here I am, I’m going to go for a Black guy!” And I think that Black males and White females share a common enemy. Remember that guy in Connecticut who shot up the beer factory when they accused him of stealing beer? And he said he “shot the racists?”

Robert Stark: I think you told me about it…

Robert Lindsay: He said he shot the racists, and he killed like 7 White people. He hated White people. We see over and over these Black guys who hate White people, and they’re attacking Whites, but then over and over, you see that this same guy has a White girlfriend!

Robert Stark: Yes! You’re familiar with the Knoxville Murders? They raped, tortured and killed two Whites, and their defense attorney tried to say that this guy’s not a racist because he had a White girlfriend.

Robert Lindsay: Right! Exactly! What’s going on there…I finally figured it out, is that the Black male and the White female share a common enemy. Their common enemy is the White man. So that’s how a Black man can hook up with a White woman and be happy, and they can have a common enemy, the White man, and how a Black man can have a White girlfriend and then go and shoot up 15 White guys at a beer distributing plant because they share a common enemy. These Black guys – they don’t hate White women. They hate White men.

Robert Stark: If you look through history at basic human tribalism, one tribe would try to steal the females from another tribe and yet be protective of their own women. And that’s why, to this day, a lot of men have double standards. They’ll date women of other groups, but they will get very defensive if someone tries to date their own women.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly! And in White society, the worst thing that a White woman can do is go out with Black guys. I know really liberal White guys, and they told me that if any White woman they know, if they find out that she dates Blacks, she’s through. She’s gone. They won’t even consider her. And a lot of White guys think this way. She’s history. She is basically evicted from the White race.

So this is a way that White males have of controlling and policing our women. This is how, just as you were saying, how we protect our women. We essentially banish them from the tribe, from the White tribe, for messing around with Black guys. Just like in the old days when tribal groups would evict you from the tribe for a transgression.

And at the same time, males of any race will have sex with females of the opposite race. Because then they are basically stealing the other tribe’s women, and if you impregnate them, you are forcing their women to bear your children. At the same time, you protect your own women, because your own women are your seed stock, and they are the continuity of your tribe. And you can’t allow them to be contaminated by the genes of these competing tribes because then your women are going to be raising the children of the competing tribes. And I still think that these ancient tribal ways are still ongoing in modern society.

Robert Stark: This is basic human instinct, but it’s not politically correct due to this Cultural Marxism has made these notions into something pathological to even discuss, but it’s still an essential human instinct nevertheless. So you see all of this as a part of the War on Men.

Robert Lindsay: It is, it is. It’s mostly a war on male sexuality. Even this sex offender thing and the pedophile thing, the Pedophile Mass Hysteria…have you noticed something? The pedophiles? They’re all men! And the victims are all women and girls.

Robert Stark: And the media portrays pedophiles as mostly White, which is also a myth. You were comparing it to Salem Witch Trials. There are dangerous people out there who we have to keep an eye on, but this whole pedophile hysteria, it’s gone way too far, and a lot of innocent people are being caught up in this and having their lives ruined. All men are being suspected that they are up to something no good sexually. This has just gone insane…

Sick, Evil Republicans Are Child Molesters!

Repost from the old site. Another famous old post too. This one also got reposted around a lot.

Yeah, I know, check out the inflammatory headline. Keep in mind, though, that this post is just kind of tongue in cheek. I’m not really trying to make any points except a lousy, dirty, lowball, scuzzy, slimy cheap shot at Republicans. Just the sort of cheap shots they do at us. Fire with fire.

I don’t care. I really dislike what the US Republican Party has become. The philosophy of the Republican Party has become abhorrent, malignant, cancerous, poisonous and vile. It is now virtually an Organized Crime Racket like the Mafia or the Crips and Bloods.

More and more, it just looks like the ultraright authoritarianism so common in banana republics in Latin America, Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal and India. It’s not even the party of democracy anymore; it’s the party of the reactionary semi-feudalism and quasi-fascist authoritarianism of your average Third World rathole.

It’s the party of corporate fascism, virulent White racism, a feudalist and Medieval warlord mindset, witch-burning Christian fundamentalist pseudo-fascist lunacy and ultraright philosophical poison.

It belongs in a trashcan, along with all the rest of the banana Republicans. Since the US Republican Party is made up of such a bunch of reactionary throwbacks, I feel that cheap shots are absolutely called for. For all I know, we could assemble a similar list of Democrat perverts, but I don’t care. If Republicans can fight dirty, than so can we.

It is rather interesting, though, that so many family-values, anti-gay, Christian fundamentalist and anti-abortion reactionaries are committing sexual crimes.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year-old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year-old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with having sex with a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church President Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year-old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year-old girl.

Republican racist United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year-old black girl, which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year-old stepdaughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his stepdaughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year-old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11-year-old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year-old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year-old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year-old boy.

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of having sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15-year-old girl and served 6 months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year-old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.

I Guess I Must Be a Pedophile

Repost from the old site.

This scholar, Tobias Hübinette, a doctoral student as Stockholm University, has written papers suggesting that Western men who are Asiaphiles, have Yellow Fever, etc. are actually pedophiles deep down inside. Or, as he puts it, “…what drives (Western man’s) fetishism with Asian women is quite simply paedophile tendencies.”

The usual PC morons are calling the poor guy a racist, and I haven’t even the foggiest idea why.

He also says that the hip trend of Whites adopting East Asian kids is part of a long tradition of colonial oppression.

The university’s legal department is investigating him and he may face charges of reverse racism, whatever the Hell that means. What does that mean, “face charges”?

I still don’t understand why this guy’s work is seen as racist, but to PC dolts, just about everything is. I guess the Sun is racist because it shines on those poor Third World countries so hard and makes them sweat and get tired and stuff.

All these years I’ve been romping around with Asian women, and it turns out I was really a serial child molester. I never realized that pedophilia could be so much fun.

Annoying Teenage Girls

Repost from the old site. Annoying teenage girls is illegal. Wait a minute. Let’s think this out first. We’d have to put almost all the little hotties in prison then, right? Since they’re all annoying?

I’m normally sympathetic to the teenage girls in these kinds of cases, but something about this stuff makes me worry. What exactly is it that men are not supposed to do in these cases? What exactly did this guy do wrong? Following them? Ok, that’s pretty damn weird. Stopping ahead of them several times? That’s strange.

Leering at them as they walked by? Shit. That’s a crime? I check out teenage girls myself if they’re hot enough, and teenage girls look at me too. For some reason, Felony Leering Molestation creeps me out a lot more than this guy’s behavior.

But this guy’s basically acting like a stalker.

Here’s another one. This guy pulled over to talk to some teenage girls walking home from school. I wonder what he said?

Then they found porn in his vehicle! Oh no! What a sick fuck! Only sick pedophiles read porn! The porn had “young adults”! Ew! Child molester! We know he’s a child molester because of the word “young.” Non-pedos only read MILF and old lady porn, that’s how we know they are non-pedos.

He also had pregnant porn in his car! Ew gross! Big fat gross pregnant chicks getting laid! What a creep! Only a sick creep would have sex with a pregnant chick. Normal guys won’t even look at their wives until after they drop.

They arrested him for felony talking molestation.

Ok, so if talk to an underage girl, am I annoying her? Can I go down on Felony Annoying Molesting, whatever the Hell that is? Do any of you all find this stuff worrying? How does one even know when one is breaking the law anyway? I talk to kids sometimes. What the heck? Am I breaking the law or what?

I’m wondering if it is a crime to “annoy” adult females in this way? At what point are we annoying an adult female anyway? What the Hell? I don’t know about these laws. They give me a bad feeling.

Here’s a coach. I think what he did was pretty cool. He tied up some teenage girls, then he put tape over their mouths. He didn’t have sex with them though, he just temporarily restrained their annoyingness with some binding and gagging objects. Dude! You’re awesome. You got a defense fund?

I like this guy too. He’s a male witch, a warlock. How evil can you get? And he enslaved teenage girls! How did he do it. Mind control, baby, mind control. He swung a watch in front of them til they turned into kinky teenslut Stepford Teen automatons! He turned them into “sex slaves.” Yo! All women should be like this! Specifically, he used “hypnotism and mind-altering techniques to entice two 15-year-old girls into prostitution, sado-masochism and black magic.” Yo!

This is too funny:

The self-proclaimed warlock enslaved two troubled 15-year-old girls who came to him for counseling and used black magic and mumbo jumbo to entice them into prostitution and sadomasochism.The girls were fed illegal drugs and Fletcher used mind altering techniques and hypnotism to dupe them into believing kinky sexual acts – in which they were tied up and whipped – were pagan rites.

He also advertised one of the girls on the Internet as a submissive teen schoolgirl…bruisable and will take belt and paddle…wears dog collar and nipple clamps.”

The sorcerer’s evil spell was broken when he was jailed for ten years with a minimum of eight years.

No problem jailing the dude, but I think the girls should go to jail too – for aggravated felony stupidity. From the article: “He duped them into believing that kinky sexual acts were actually pagan rites.” LOL! Hey, are there any adult women this stupid? I want to get into this warlock thing; it sounds promising. Do they offer courses anywhere?

No wait. There’s a punch line:

Authorities are also trying to determine if the girls were forced or had consented to take part in the tie-ups.

Haha! Actually, they filled out job applications for the position, and there was a long waiting list, but these were the lucky girls who got chosen for the Bondage Model position.

On the other hand, these guys here, here, here, here, here, here and here are engaging in some pretty messed-up behavior.

Good legal case where a state Supreme Court ruled that “annoying” was so vague a crime that one could hardly figure out when one was breaking the law and when one was not:

On the other hand, conflicting Nevada case law suggests that this court will consider whether an enactment is facially void for vagueness, even if no First Amendment interests are implicated, when the challenged statute is so vague that it fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is permitted or forbidden.

For example, in Cunningham v. State, this court upheld a facial vagueness challenge to a statute under the Due Process Clause of the Nevada Constitution as appropriate, where the challenged statute prohibited “the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of common intelligence [were required to] necessarily guess as to its meaning” and where the statute was “so vague that it [did] not provide a constitutional basis for criminal prosecution.”

In Coates v. City of Cincinnati , the Supreme Court considered the use of the word “annoy” in an ordinance that made it unlawful for three or more people to assemble on a sidewalk and “conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by.” In holding that the ordinance was “unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard,” the Court reasoned:

Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others. Thus, the ordinance is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result, “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.”

We conclude that the standard of conduct proscribed by NRS 207.260, namely, conduct which is “annoying,” does not provide fair notice because the citizens of Nevada must guess when conduct that bothers, disturbs, irritates or harasses a minor rises to the level of criminal conduct.

I agree with the majority that the conduct of “annoying a minor” is unconstitutionally vague. That charge is unconstitutional because it “fails to notify individuals what conduct is prohibited, and it encourages arbitrary and capricious enforcement by police.” If annoying a minor alone were unlawful, virtually every parent would at one time or another be a lawbreaker.

The bolded text is hilarious.

The case above is a pretty standard reiteration of how many US courts have thrown out statutes on “vagueness” grounds.

I do agree that annoying children (noun phrase) should be illegal, but I’m a bit worried about annoying children (verb phrase) being illegal.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)