Newest Members
Weldon Sage, Mamadebski, CC Counseling, Alan Clammer, kristih335
12679 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
jj78 (37), kiva5 (56), NewMe (40)
Who's Online
4 registered (Dolphinboy, Scott1962, Austin54, 1 invisible), 17 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12679 Members
75 Forums
65142 Topics
455645 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4
Topic Options
#332676 - 05/31/10 11:11 PM Re: Biological basis for pedophilia? [Re: Marinan]
catfish86 Offline

Registered: 10/27/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Ohio
These professionals seem to me to be uniquely biased and uninformed about pedophilia. Sounds like a canned attempt to use sophomoric science (word sophomore means "wise fool" which is a second year student who has learned enough to sound intelligent and thinks he knows but doesn't really understand) to excuse and somehow condone the behavior. I am here to tell you that even IF someone has a sexual orientation towards children, trauma specialists can literally show you the damage caused on brain scans. THE CHILDREN they prey on do not have a sexual orientation for adults. I sure as hell didn't want my dad and a caring preacher to fondle and play with me. While I am a christian fundamentalist in many respects, at least adult males having sex with other adult males are both participating of their own free will. I can't even tell you how old I was when I was first molested. I sure as hell couldn't have consented to it.

God grant me
The Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The Courage to change the things I can,
And the Wisdom to know the difference.

#332698 - 06/01/10 11:26 AM Re: Biological basis for pedophilia? [Re: catfish86]
kidneythis Offline

Registered: 11/08/09
Posts: 1558
Just to let you know the Eugenics movement is an entirely American invention. Hitler may have based a lot of his beleifs on it but it was Americans who invented it. In fact my abuse in that shelter was caught up in the tail end of the movement. I'm starting to realize that my family intentionally interfered with my mental development by neglect, lies and starvation, to make me seem dumb so I would get locked up in the feeble minded ward once in the place. They had a ward for retarded kids in the hospital the shelter was part of and most people still thought that what a kid showed outwardly indicated what they were entirely. In fact many still do.
The funny part is that if I hadn't been abused I wouldn't be short. I beleive I am short because of the starvation and abuse I endured. I never got to eat as much as I needed or wanted until I was 18. I never knew what it felt like to not be hungry or not to worry about food until then. My brothers are all right at or over 6 feet and they didn't miss a meal.

the lowering of the age of onset and the larger growth of people is and was always part of human potential. The realization of that potential has been made possible by the increase in nutrition and calories available to us as humans. In the early 20th century puberty set in at 14-16 for boys and 13-15 for girls generally, as most people were very thin and small. As the technology of farming and the economy took off so did physical development. We are after all animals and as animals our primary evolutionary goal is to reproduce. It is the same for all living things.
It isn't the chemicals used in farming themselves that are responsible but the nutrition and caloric content of the food they help produce that caused this increase in growth and the earlier onset of puberty. In fact most chemicals reduce fertility and feminize males who take them in. I think its called estrogen mimicking chemicals?
Thats physical feminization not mental.

Now for the biological basis and brain scans;
The very best that can be done with one of these is to establish a correlation. A correlation is saying that two things occured at the same time not that they are related or causative in any way.
Why? Because every single brain is wired differently. Yes certain areas are used for certain functions in most people but there are normally functioning people who are wired completely differenlty because of some congenital defect, or some trauma or????
There is no way that a scan can determine what reaction a person is having unless it is physical, and that is only a physical manifestation of whatever is going on inside which again cannot be known. You don't know if the person's mind is wandering and thinking of something else even if they say they aren't, or if the reaction is involuntary or unconscious, the fact is we can only measure the electrical impulses of biological functions. Unless and until there is a method of reading a persons thoughts its all pointless bullshit to discuss it in any but a theorhetical way.

The only people who think correlations mean something that should be acted on are the same types who think they "know" things that cannot be known. It is the antithesis of everything American and Western, human really, to think this way.
I regard it as a character defect that so many (people in general ala jerry springer) think it is ok to even think about trying to know or effect anothers thoughts. And to apply judgment to this person for the imagined offending thought. That can only be based on fear and insecurity. Normal free people who beleive in the freedom of man do not need to know and even want to know what another is thinking unless they are part of their lives. And even then they are ALWAYS aware that we can only know what a person tells us and what a person does, anything further is all imagination no matter how many correlative factors one can point to. Yes we can use these correlations to inform our personal behavior but should never use them to infringe on another.
The current examples that prove the point of this evolution in Western thinking and are the basis for the thinking that became America that I can point to immediately are the poor SOB who found that bomb at the olympics in Atlanta and the other poor SOB who the FBI was so sure commited the anthrax attacks and gave us the evil undermineing and wholly intentionally ambiguous expression "person of interest". Everyone just "knew" these guys did it in spite of the lack of evidence. They destroyed these men's lives based on an imaginary fear based reaction to correlative information.

This is the kind of crap you get when you just "know" something is true. Or you think you know what someone "really" means as if that adjective in front of mean makes mean mean more when in fact it completely destroys the meaning of mean and makes the entire statement ambiguous and open to whatever interpretation the strongest mind present wants it to fit.

By all means study away people but please the rest of us lets not forget we are human and fallible and we can only know what we see and hear ourselves everything else is based on beleif and trust in things we don't know haven't been corrupted unless we checked them ourselves.

So Biological basis may mean something different than orientation as I originally ass-u-me d but it still only will give a correlative indication. Please do not let your personal investment in the issue cloud your reason and condem uncounted innocent future people to be subject to all manner of personal invasions because they were unfortunate enough to have these correlative indicators.

As Mark Twain once quipped, history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

#332702 - 06/01/10 01:08 PM Re: Biological basis for pedophilia? [Re: Marinan]
LandOfShadow Offline

Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 684
Loc: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
I'm all for research for the sake of a better understanding of pedophilia, BUT, BUT, BUT!

People always seem to think all of this offender stuff will stop CSA. I say it won't, won't, won't. Don't confuse this. Most CSA occurs in secret. Most isn't caught. No matter what we do or know about the offenders we catch will do anything about the ones we don't know about yet. Sure a small number of offenders are prevented from abusing--terrific--but it's a small fraction. Let's stop all of it.

THUS. The other option is to make kids "unabusable" so to speak. The victim and the perp are the only people who know about the abuse in most cases. One of them has to act to interrupt the abuse. Very few perps will come forward and ask for help, especially if they face prison. So that leaves the child. I want research into creating "pretective measures" for children. This seems so obvious to me now, and so key. The focus on offenders always seems to obscure this key observation.

When a kid immediately tells about some abuse, I want to know, "How did he/she do that!" Understand that. If a kid avoids abuse that's attempted, understand what leads a kid to do that! This seems to be the only way to truely stop CSA. Since parents and family abuse, this training also needs to come from outside the family somehow.

Et par le pouvoir d’un mot Je recommence ma vie, Je suis né pour te connaître, Pour te nommer

And by the power of a single word I can begin my life again, I was born to know you, to name you

Paul Eluard

#332768 - 06/02/10 11:44 AM Re: Biological basis for pedophilia? [Re: LandOfShadow]
kidneythis Offline

Registered: 11/08/09
Posts: 1558
I think you've got something there LOS

As Mark Twain once quipped, history may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

#476444 - 02/01/15 08:21 PM Re: Biological basis for pedophilia? [Re: dgoods]
victor-victim Offline

Registered: 09/27/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: O Kanada
Originally Posted By: dgoods
In my last post, i almost went on about the dangers of straying too close to a eugenics-type mindset. I'm glad Hitler's not around to see what's possible with technology these days- it's the same old story about a knife being able to be used to slice bread, or cut someone's throat. The issue isn't the technonlogy, it's are we mature enough as a society to know how to use it responsibly?
just my further 2 cents...


“Nature is unimprovable. Social reformers should therefore allow events to take their inevitable course and let war, disease and starvation reap the surplus.”
Thomas Malthus

“All religions, nearly all philosophies, and even a part of science testify to the unwearying, heroic effort of mankind desperately denying its own contingency.”
Jacques Monod

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.”
John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.

“The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
- Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”
- Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier

“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” [and] “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”
- Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co founder of Earth First!

“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
- Margaret Sanger

- Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind”
- Theodore Roosevelt

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN.

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
- The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
- David Rockefeller Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club, praising Chairman Mao, whose policies killed at least 30 million people.

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine.”
- Eric Pianka

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,”
- Eric Pianka

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), Philosopher

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
- Margaret Sanger

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
- Margaret Sanger

“Eugenics is… the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”
- Margaret Sanger

“Nature must, in the not far distant future, institute bankruptcy proceedings against industrial civilization, and perhaps against the standing crop of human flesh.”
- William Catton',

“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.”
- Joseph Dzhugashvili        (Stalin)

plenty of ideas and opinions from population control "experts".

i think it is a slippery slope between genetics and genocide.


"Nothing uses carbon like a first world human."



#477215 - 02/14/15 12:59 PM Re: Biological basis for pedophilia? [Re: victor-victim]
BraveFalcon Offline

Registered: 02/25/13
Posts: 1196
Loc: The ATL

Sorry that I'm going off topic here, but those Georgia Guidestones are only about an hour and a half drive from where I live. I've thought about going out there to see them before but I haven't yet. Part of the problem being that they're out in the middle of nowhere and there's nothing else to do out there. So, if I went out there to see them, I'd be more or less making and hour and a half drive just to see them, take some pictures, then turn around and make the hour and a half drive back home. It's not like you go to see the Guidestones, then spend the day at the adjoining theme park or something. Ha ha. Perhaps if I can find someone to go with, I could ride out there on a nice day and pack a picnic lunch or something. Peace,


Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4

Moderator:  Chase Eric, ModTeam 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.