My internet paedo theory

I already tried this on the SDMB sometime ago, but as I was busy trolling it at the time it wasn't considered properly, so let's try again, without the trolling.

My theory is that most internet paedophiles are actually rape fetishists. Permit me to explain my logic:

If one were a rape fetishist who wanted images of REAL rape, where would one find it on the internet? There are no websites (I should have thought) where rape pornography is openly distributed, but at the same time there are ones where child abuse is, presumably. What is one of the incidental properties of child abuse? It's rape!

So for the rape fetishist to find rape, all they need to do is find child abuse.

Now we've established that child abuse viewers might be rape fetishists instead, all we need do is think which is more common, and the best way to think about this is genetics; those who enjoy rape will be very successful at passing on their genes due to all the rape, while those who enjoy abusing kids will have less kids due to sleeping with the infertile, and possible abusing their own children. Therefore rape fetishists are by far the most common, and assuming a similar likelihood of seeking out the child abuse material, they make up the greatest numbers of most so-called paedophiles. QED.

It's hard for me to believe someone could post something this stupid except deliberately.

Duh.

[modhat:1e14efjw]I agree with Excalibur. The OP is such indefensible nonsense that it's either stupidity, trolling, or both. I'm closing it.[/modhat:1e14efjw]

MsRobyn
Moderator, The Crucible

[modhat:1e6gii1x]Re-opened at request of OP. I'll be monitoring this thread for the next 18 hours. Please keep it civil.[/modhat:1e6gii1x]

Dude, you need to get on over to the Giraffe board, we just lost our favorite resident troll and auditions are being taken to replace him--and you're historic! Unfortunately, this thread was way "too much, too soon," I think you're losing your touch.

SA, this isn't trolling. I may troll at some indeterminate point in the future, but I have learnt that it is best to start out with serious queries as if one starts out a troll then one does not receive serious responses.

So for now I'm fine. May look at giraffe eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SBSO

SA, this isn't trolling. I may troll at some indeterminate point in the future, but I have learnt that it is best to start out with serious queries as if one starts out a troll then one does not receive serious responses.

So for now I'm fine. May look at giraffe eventually.

---

[modhat:33klbytm]SmartAleq, please don't feed the troll.[/modhat:33klbytm]

[modwarn:33klbytm]SBSO, I know I said that I'd give this thread 18 hours. However, your post above is an explicit admission that you're setting the bait for future trolling. Therefore, I'm closing the thread after all, and you're getting a formal warning. I'm also going to bring this up with the other mods to possibly relegate you to Room 101. Thanks for the most excitement I've had in weeks.[/modwarn:33klbytm]

[modhat:33gp5o4t]I'm taking SmartAleq's suggestion and moving this to the Thunderdome.[/modhat:33gp5o4t]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention--OP is retarded, Abort, Retry, Fail?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SBSO

There are no websites (I should have thought) where rape pornography is openly distributed

---

Really? I doubt that. At least as "openly" as illegal child porn. But I'm not googling to find out.

Quote:

---

What is one of the incidental properties of child abuse? It's rape!

So for the rape fetishist to find rape, all they need to do is find child abuse.

---

2 problems here:
First, you assume that child pornography looks like rape. Very often, so I understand, it doesn't. It looks like kids fucking each other, or sucking a grown up's cock, or what have you, quite willingly. Perhaps even enthusiastically. Children contain all the nerve endings that adults do, and often feel sexual arousal while they're being abused. Often, their abusers are trusted family members or friends, who the child wants to please at this strange "game".

Secondly, you're assuming that rape fetishists have no other standards by which they judge their porn except "contains rape". That's akin to assuming that fans of child pornography are vanilla, because one of the incidental properties of child pornography is fellatio, or vaginal sex. I'm more inclined to believe that rape fetishists are just as nauseated by child pornography as the general population.

Quote:

---

Now we've established that child abuse viewers might be rape fetishists instead, all we need do is think which is more common, and the best way to think about this is genetics;

---

What evidence do you have that rape fetishes or pedophilia are genetically inherited?


I'm not saying your theory is impossible, just that you haven't supported it even a little bit, much less QEDed it.

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SBSO

My theory is that most internet paedophiles are actually rape fetishists. Permit me to explain my logic: If one were a rape fetishist who wanted images of REAL rape, where would one find it on the internet? There are no websites (I should have thought) where rape pornography is openly distributed, but at the same time there are ones where child abuse is, presumably. What is one of the incidental properties of child abuse? It's rape!

---

In your first line you seem to be drawing using an assumption that pedos and rapists are two distinctly different brands of weirdos before trying to explain how they are much of the same. In my thinking I had already thought that, 'yeah' they're already the same. They both have a certain sexual trigger that is activated by an extreme sense of aggressive domination over someone sexually. I can wrap my head around someone thinking that they want to take sexual gratification by force over someone unwillingly. At least that's sort of what I assumed was in the mind of someone preying on a kid... not so much that they think a ten year old is more sexually attractive than a peer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

First, you assume that child pornography looks like rape. Very often, so I understand, it doesn't.

---

And now I'll try to disagree here. I think you're thinking that "rape" porn would have to be a violent display. Even if it's a (shudder) gentle act (/shudder) of something sexual, there would still be that ingredient of rape because of the age of the victim.

Literotica.com has lot's a submitted sex stories, all of bizarre nature including "non-consent/reluctance". Skimming through I don't see a lot of black eyes, duct tape, and knives.

* I don't think I've ever winced so much writing a post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SBSO

There are no websites (I should have thought) where rape pornography is openly distributed

---

Really? I doubt that. At least as "openly" as illegal child porn. But I'm not googling to find out.

---

I'm basing this on arrests that one hears about in the media. I've only ever heard of one investigation about rape porn, and that turned out to be a youtube hoax. But there's paedos left right and centre.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

Quote:

---

What is one of the incidental properties of child abuse? It's rape!

So for the rape fetishist to find rape, all they need to do is find child abuse.

---

2 problems here:
First, you assume that child pornography looks like rape. Very often, so I understand, it doesn't. It looks like kids fucking each other, or sucking a grown up's cock, or what have you, quite willingly. Perhaps even enthusiastically. Children contain all the nerve endings that adults do, and often feel sexual arousal while they're being abused. Often, their abusers are trusted family members or friends, who the child wants to please at this strange "game".

---

Sure, but you only need some of it to be obviously rape.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

Secondly, you're assuming that rape fetishists have no other standards by which they judge their porn except "contains rape". That's akin to assuming that fans of child pornography are vanilla, because one of the incidental properties of child pornography is fellatio, or vaginal sex. I'm more inclined to believe that rape fetishists are just as nauseated by child pornography as the general population.

---

Possible, but where does that nausea mostly come from? It isn't naked children, because naked children are neutral to most of the population; we don't find them arousing but we're not especially bothered by them. It's the abuse factor that nauseates us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

Quote:

---

Now we've established that child abuse viewers might be rape fetishists instead, all we need do is think which is more common, and the best way to think about this is genetics;

---

What evidence do you have that rape fetishes or pedophilia are genetically inherited?


I'm not saying your theory is impossible, just that you haven't supported it even a little bit, much less QEDed it.

---

Everything is genetically (or I suppose Dawkins would make me say a generic replicator) inherited one way or another, even if it's just a pre disposition with the environment doing the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by beebs

I can't believe I'm wading into this, but...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SBSO

My theory is that most internet paedophiles are actually rape fetishists. Permit me to explain my logic: If one were a rape fetishist who wanted images of REAL rape, where would one find it on the internet? There are no websites (I should have thought) where rape pornography is openly distributed, but at the same time there are ones where child abuse is, presumably. What is one of the incidental properties of child abuse? It's rape!

---

In your first line you seem to be drawing using an assumption that pedos and rapists are two distinctly different brands of weirdos before trying to explain how they are much of the same. In my thinking I had already thought that, 'yeah' they're already the same. They both have a certain sexual trigger that is activated by an extreme sense of aggressive domination over someone sexually. I can wrap my head around someone thinking that they want to take sexual gratification by force over someone unwillingly. At least that's sort of what I assumed was in the mind of someone preying on a kid... not so much that they think a ten year old is more sexually attractive than a peer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WhyNot

First, you assume that child pornography looks like rape. Very often, so I understand, it doesn't.

---

And now I'll try to disagree here. I think you're thinking that "rape" porn would have to be a violent display. Even if it's a (shudder) gentle act (/shudder) of something sexual, there would still be that ingredient of rape because of the age of the victim.

Literotica.com has lot's a submitted sex stories, all of bizarre nature including "non-consent/reluctance". Skimming through I don't see a lot of black eyes, duct tape, and knives.

* I don't think I've ever winced so much writing a post.

---

Now that's interesting and something I hadn't considered: What if paedophiles and rape fetishests are exactly the same thing. Perhaps one reason for the increase in paedophilia has been the decrease in rape - I hadn't thought of that.

Um, no. Fetishes and sexual preferences are in no way genetic. Consider

*Homosexuality
*Fat Admirers - those who find +600 pound women attractive
*attraction to robots, statues, inanimate objects
*autosexuals
*asexuals

And probably hundreds of others. These all make reproduction either impossible or far less likely. Assuming even a genetic bias we would see a lot less of these, and a lot more people with impregnation fetishes.

Also pedophilia is the attraction to underage people. It is by no means the same as rape, which is an attraction to the circumstances under which sex takes place. I'm sure there are pedophiles who are disgusted by that suggestion, and rapists who would be disgusted by the idea of having sex with children. Preferences can shift and change over the course of a person's life, but I don't see how these are interconneted.

Finally, if someone has a rape fetish, there is plenty of simulated rape porn out there. I keep stumbling upon it by accident when looking for more innocent porn. That would not satisfy all of them, but I don't see why they would go after kiddies if they could not find it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SBSO

Possible, but where does that nausea mostly come from? It isn't naked children, because naked children are neutral to most of the population; we don't find them arousing but we're not especially bothered by them. It's the abuse factor that nauseates us.

---

No, generally it's the naked children in sexual situations that bothers us. When I was 2, my 4 year old friend and I were investigating each others' bodies under a blanket. He suggested he put his "hot dog" in my "bun" (meaning between my labia). Being 2, I saw nothing wrong with this, and so we were about to try it when the blanket was whisked away and our very horrified, very nauseated parents just lost it. No coercion, no rape, no abuse, even, as there wasn't an adult directing us, but a viscerally disturbing scene to the adults present.

Quote:

---

Everything is genetically (or I suppose Dawkins would make me say a generic replicator) inherited one way or another, even if it's just a pre disposition with the environment doing the rest.

---

Repeating it doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have that fetishes are genetically inherited?

I have my own "internet paedo theory"... all paedo's have undersized cock complexes. Except for the women...and they might have enlarged clits.


ps. It may not make any sense, but when it comes to paedophilia, what does?

I wasn't going to reply to this, not because it looked like a troll at first glance, but because I think that SBSO bases his* whole argument on two false premises that he then whisks casually past without closer examination.

One is this;

Quote:

---

There are no websites (I should have thought) where rape pornography is openly distributed, but at the same time there are ones where child abuse is, presumably.

---

Pornography depicting simulated rape is quite common. And to the viewer is possibly indistinguishable from the 'real thing'. Since there are such things as recorded consent, the pornographer might be in a parlous moral position, but it would be difficult to prosecute. A woman over 18 consented to that depiction, no matter how morally repugnant it may be, and she probably wouldn't sue for assault, (local laws regarding actual publication vary of course, but we are talking about the internet. That's why the police go after the consumer in their jurisdction, not the producer who probably isn't).

The second false premise is that someone who enjoys viewing depictions of rape would also enjoy depictions of children engaged in sexual intercourse.

1) As beebs says, it's probably not the same thing, physically. And it isn't even the same thing in law, (in the UK - YMMV).
2) The triggers for arousal aren't even compatible. It's like saying that someone who likes bondage would get a hard-on at a rodeo.

But I can see common ground between the rapist and the paedophile; control and inadequacy. Maybe that's where the topic stems from? The fact that they have that in common, even though the targets are different?

What say you, SBSO?









*Sorry if you are a "her", but I'm avoiding the whole clumsy "his/her" constructions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guizmeaux

It's like saying that someone who likes bondage would get a hard-on at a rodeo.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guizmeaux

I wasn't going to reply to this, not because it looked like a troll at first glance,

---

Snipped.

I'm confused... :???: ...it pretty much is a troll, actually. :p
SBSO is short for Small British Shop Owner...a person who was banned from the SDMB for trolling excessively.

So unless this was a woosh..?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idle Thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guizmeaux

I wasn't going to reply to this, not because it looked like a troll at first glance,

---

Snipped.

I'm confused... :???: ...it pretty much is a troll, actually. :p
SBSO is short for Small British Shop Owner...a person who was banned from the SDMB for trolling excessively.

So unless this was a woosh..?

---

Ah, I was trying to figure out who this assclown is.

(Wasn't he a mega-racist as well?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idle Thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guizmeaux

I wasn't going to reply to this, not because it looked like a troll at first glance,

---

Snipped.

I'm confused... :???: ...it pretty much is a troll, actually. :p
SBSO is short for Small British Shop Owner...a person who was banned from the SDMB for trolling excessively.

So unless this was a woosh..?

---

I have to shrug and say I don't know SBSO, so gave the benefit of the doubt.

The topic is obviously calculated to get a reaction of some sort, but usually trolls are looking for righteous indignation and defensiveness, or downright spittle-flecked rage. He got neither from me so if he was trolling, at best he got a measured answer and ten minutes of my time.

You can call it a whoosh if you like, though. I might not be too bright. :smile:

It's more that Idle Thoughts isn't too bright, you're fine :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guinastasia

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Idle Thoughts

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guizmeaux

I wasn't going to reply to this, not because it looked like a troll at first glance,

---

Snipped.

I'm confused... :???: ...it pretty much is a troll, actually. :p
SBSO is short for Small British Shop Owner...a person who was banned from the SDMB for trolling excessively.

So unless this was a woosh..?

---

Ah, I was trying to figure out who this assclown is.

(Wasn't he a mega-racist as well?)

---

go away, I don't like you

Ahhh truth. The bitter-almonds taste of truth.

" go away, I don't like you " ? Ouch.

The transparent and sad thing is that getting people to talk about rape and pedophilia isn't an exercise in intellectual rigor. It's something that is a source of great erotic stimulation for our dear OP'er.

Obvious. And sick. Away, away with you. The Interweb is a big place, you can find many others who love what you love and will shower you with warm golden sticky salty approval.

Away, away with you.

Cartooniverse

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartooniverse

Ahhh truth. The bitter-almonds taste of truth.

" go away, I don't like you " ? Ouch.

The transparent and sad thing is that getting people to talk about rape and pedophilia isn't an exercise in intellectual rigor. It's something that is a source of great erotic stimulation for our dear OP'er.

Obvious. And sick. Away, away with you. The Interweb is a big place, you can find many others who love what you love and will shower you with warm golden sticky salty approval.

Away, away with you.

Cartooniverse

---

If you don't agree with the OP, you should challenge it.

If you think it's trolling, you should ignore it.

If you're defending someone who's only contribution to this thread is calling the OP an "assclown", then I just don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartooniverse

Ahhh truth. The bitter-almonds taste of truth.

" go away, I don't like you " ? Ouch.

The transparent and sad thing is that getting people to talk about rape and pedophilia isn't an exercise in intellectual rigor. It's something that is a source of great erotic stimulation for our dear OP'er.

Obvious. And sick. Away, away with you. The Interweb is a big place, you can find many others who love what you love and will shower you with warm golden sticky salty approval.

Away, away with you.

Cartooniverse

---

you're the moron who thought colin farrell kissing some girl was child abuse, so I can't possibly read this post without laughing...

Glad to be the source of a smile.

:)

You can go to pornhub.com and do a search for "rape" and find tons of simulated rape videos. Considering I've come across that kind of stuff many times accidentally and have never seen any real child pornography, I think this theory is kind of whack.