Spinoff from the Eric Pepke thread - pedophiles

[The_Metatron]

Let's cut to the chase:

Metatron is it your claim that:

1. Humans in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction? Acting being defined here as attempting to have sex with.
If not, then what is your claim?
If it is, please back this claim up with evidence.

Trivial.

Among adults 25–44 years of age, 97 percent of men and 98 percent of women have had vaginal intercourse; 90 percent of men and 88 percent of women have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner; and 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. About 6.5 percent of men 25–44 years of age have had oral or anal sex with another man. Based on a differently worded question, 11 percent of women 25–44 years of age reported having had a sexual experience with another woman. (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005, abstract)

TableIII.JPG (84.02 KiB) Viewed 1114 times

Yeah, I think it's pretty fucking plain that people "in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction". That dataset stops at age 44. The trend all but guarantees the slope will continue in the same direction beyond that age.

Good luck finding the 60 year old man who hasn't had sex with whatever partner fits his alignment.

Mosher, William D., Anjani Chandra, and Jo Jones. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2005.

2. Humans are incapable of intrinsincally (sic) moderating their own behaviour?

Sexual behavior? Over a lifetime? Evidence shows that very few do.

3. That humans in general tend to rape people?

In some proportion, they do. Just over one in a thousand of all people over 12 years old in the US was raped in 2014 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf). Someone's doing this raping aren't they?

If not, then what does it matter that paedophiles are no more or less likely to rape people and why do you think it's ok to persecute paedophiles merely for being paedophiles?

When you find the person who said that, you ask them.

So now that Mosher, Chandra, & Jones have established that something over 98 percent of men, by the age of 44, have acted on their sexual attractions. That number who haven't is something less than 2%. Mosher, Chandra, & Jones' paper doesn't address why that 2% had no sexual contact, they don't discuss whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

Yeah, that pretty well supports a statement that people tend to act on the sexual attractions. Nearly all people who have them.

Now, do you have any support whatsoever to claim any different proportions exist among the subset of men with a sexual orientation we would call pedophilia? Because, in its absence, we can work out that there are roughly 43 million (1.7% of the current adult male population) pedophile men over the age of 18 right now. 42 million of them are going to act before they are 44 years old.

Well, that is, unless you claim they possess much superior self control over their sexual attractions than everyone else has.

So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

[EricPepke'sFriend]

Nothing in that chart indicates whether the sexual interaction was with the preferred partner. It is not uncommon for homosexuals to come out of a (presumed unsatisfactory) heterosexual relationship. Just because someone has sex does not mean they got what they wanted.

[The_Metatron]

Nothing in that chart indicates whether the sexual interaction was with the preferred partner. It is not uncommon for homosexuals to come out of a (presumed unsatisfactory) heterosexual relationship. Just because someone has sex does not mean they got what they wanted.

Yeah, that chart is one of dozens in that paper. It was sufficient for my purposes. Have you read the rest?

[Nicko]

Yeah, I think it's pretty fucking plain that people "in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction". That dataset stops at age 44. The trend all but guarantees the slope will continue in the same direction beyond that age.

Good luck finding the 60 year old man who hasn't had sex with whatever partner fits his alignment.

Mosher, William D., Anjani Chandra, and Jo Jones. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2005.

2. Humans are incapable of intrinsincally (sic) moderating their own behaviour?

Sexual behavior? Over a lifetime? Evidence shows that very few do.

3. That humans in general tend to rape people?

In some proportion, they do. Just over one in a thousand of all people over 12 years old in the US was raped in 2014 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf). Someone's doing this raping aren't they?

If not, then what does it matter that paedophiles are no more or less likely to rape people and why do you think it's ok to persecute paedophiles merely for being paedophiles?

When you find the person who said that, you ask them.

So now that Mosher, Chandra, & Jones have established that something over 98 percent of men, by the age of 44, have acted on their sexual attractions. That number who haven't is something less than 2%. Mosher, Chandra, & Jones' paper doesn't address why that 2% had no sexual contact, they don't discuss whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

Yeah, that pretty well supports a statement that people tend to act on the sexual attractions. Nearly all people who have them.

Now, do you have any support whatsoever to claim any different proportions exist among the subset of men with a sexual orientation we would call pedophilia? Because, in its absence, we can work out that there are roughly 43 million (1.7% of the current adult male population) pedophile men over the age of 18 right now. 42 million of them are going to act before they are 44 years old.

Well, that is, unless you claim they possess much superior self control over their sexual attractions than everyone else has.

So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

I think one thing that you are not considering is that most people who have sex with other people aren't rapists. Paedophiles must rape in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, since children can't consent. What you need to be looking at to back up your argument from statistics therefore, is the segment of the population completely without hope of ever obtaining a consenting sexual partner and looking at what proportion of them decide that rape is the solution to this problem.

I think the other thing that you are failing to consider is that even if you are able to do this, it won't help you defend the initial statement of yours that started this discussion. Even if you could show that the likelihood of a paedophile offending was high, I doubt you are going to convince anyone reasonable that it should be considered acceptable to kill them just in case.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Yeah, I think it's pretty fucking plain that people "in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction". That dataset stops at age 44. The trend all but guarantees the slope will continue in the same direction beyond that age.

Good luck finding the 60 year old man who hasn't had sex with whatever partner fits his alignment.

Mosher, William D., Anjani Chandra, and Jo Jones. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2005.

2. Humans are incapable of intrinsincally (sic) moderating their own behaviour?

Sexual behavior? Over a lifetime? Evidence shows that very few do.

3. That humans in general tend to rape people?

In some proportion, they do. Just over one in a thousand of all people over 12 years old in the US was raped in 2014 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf). Someone's doing this raping aren't they?

If not, then what does it matter that paedophiles are no more or less likely to rape people and why do you think it's ok to persecute paedophiles merely for being paedophiles?

When you find the person who said that, you ask them.

So now that Mosher, Chandra, & Jones have established that something over 98 percent of men, by the age of 44, have acted on their sexual attractions. That number who haven't is something less than 2%. Mosher, Chandra, & Jones' paper doesn't address why that 2% had no sexual contact, they don't discuss whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

Yeah, that pretty well supports a statement that people tend to act on the sexual attractions. Nearly all people who have them.

Now, do you have any support whatsoever to claim any different proportions exist among the subset of men with a sexual orientation we would call pedophilia? Because, in its absence, we can work out that there are roughly 43 million (1.7% of the current adult male population) pedophile men over the age of 18 right now. 42 million of them are going to act before they are 44 years old.

Well, that is, unless you claim they possess much superior self control over their sexual attractions than everyone else has.

So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

I think one thing that you are not considering is that most people who have sex with other people aren't rapists. Paedophiles must rape in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, since children can't consent. What you need to be looking at to back up your argument from statistics therefore, is the segment of the population completely without hope of ever obtaining a consenting sexual partner and looking at what proportion of them decide that rape is the solution to this problem.

I think the other thing that you are failing to consider is that even if you are able to do this, it won't help you defend the initial statement of yours that started this discussion. Even if you could show that the likelihood of a paedophile offending was high, I doubt you are going to convince anyone reasonable that it should be considered acceptable to kill them just in case.

is basically what I am trying to get at.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Let's cut to the chase:

Metatron is it your claim that:

1. Humans in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction? Acting being defined here as attempting to have sex with.
If not, then what is your claim?
If it is, please back this claim up with evidence.

Trivial.

Wrong as is evident from what you think supports your case.

Among adults 25–44 years of age, 97 percent of men and 98 percent of women have had vaginal intercourse; 90 percent of men and 88 percent of women have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner; and 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. About 6.5 percent of men 25–44 years of age have had oral or anal sex with another man. Based on a differently worded question, 11 percent of women 25–44 years of age reported having had a sexual experience with another woman. (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005, abstract)

TableIII.JPG

Yeah, I think it's pretty fucking plain that people "in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction". That dataset stops at age 44. The trend all but guarantees the slope will continue in the same direction beyond that age.

The above statistic demonstrates that people have had sex.
It does not demonstrate that they've had sex with the vast majority of people they've found themselves attracted to, which is my point.
And, as Nicko pointed out, you're still ignoring the factor of consent and I'm not talking about legal age, but the willingness of both partners to have sex.

Good luck finding the 60 year old man who hasn't had sex with whatever partner fits his alignment.

Good luck finding an any year adult, who's had sex with most people he's find himself attracted to.

Mosher, William D., Anjani Chandra, and Jo Jones. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2005.

2. Humans are incapable of intrinsincally (sic) moderating their own behaviour?

Sexual behavior? Over a lifetime? Evidence shows that very few do.

Except that it doesnt'.
You keep conflating having sex itself, with having sex with most of the people you find yourself attracted to, which is the point I am getting at.
The fact that most people only have sex with people who want to, demonstrates that people can decide not to act on their attraction.

3. That humans in general tend to rape people?

In some proportion, they do. Just over one in a thousand of all people over 12 years old in the US was raped in 2014 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf). Someone's doing this raping aren't they?

Someone, yes. Most people? You've yet to demonstrate this.

If not, then what does it matter that paedophiles are no more or less likely to rape people and why do you think it's ok to persecute paedophiles merely for being paedophiles?

When you find the person who said that, you ask them.

When Rachel pointed out that there's no evidence that paedophiles are more likely to rape, you responded with 'Nor less likely.' (Paraphrased)
What was the point of that response?


So now that Mosher, Chandra, & Jones have established that something over 98 percent of men, by the age of 44, have acted on their sexual attractions. That number who haven't is something less than 2%. Mosher, Chandra, & Jones' paper doesn't address why that 2% had no sexual contact, they don't discuss whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

Yeah, that pretty well supports a statement that people tend to act on the sexual attractions. Nearly all people who have them.[/quote]
Not most of the time however. Again, there's a difference between most people acting at least once on their attraction and most people being unable to not act on it, most of the time.

Now, do you have any support whatsoever to claim any different proportions exist among the subset of men with a sexual orientation we would call pedophilia?

I've no interest in engaging with straw-men designed to shift the burden of proof from your claim.

Well, that is, unless you claim they possess much superior self control over their sexual attractions than everyone else has.

Why do you persist in regurgitating this dishonest straw-man when I've repeatedly explained to you that is not my position?
And it's still burden shifting as it is you, who keeps claiming they're highly unlikely to be able to control their actions.

So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

Pure burden shifting. Not to mention ignoring the difference between consensual sex between adults and raping children as Nicko already pointed out.

[SpeedOfSound]

Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

How do you feel about children 0-12, getting shot and killed by stray bullets off street fights in Chicago? Please reply with depictive emotive force.

This is research.

[SpeedOfSound]

This topic wouldn't even fucking exist except for the plain truth that people tend to act on their fantasies.

Exactly. People don't fantasise about things unless a part of them thinks the act would be ok. It's gotta feel ok or there is no gratification; there is revulsion.

It's interesting. I think the opposite may be true. Sexual fantasy and niche seeking, given fear and revulsion, I think are what is behind fetishes. It could be that the people who are most revolted are capable of the most sexual stimulation. Any research on this?

I heard, very much second-hand, that bad and shaming toilet training results in certain bathroom fetishes. It would explain to some degree why people who are abused often go on to abuse others. It would also offer a Very dark explanation for this weird obsession over child-sex crimes and the oddly absent obsession over the general issue of little kids dying at all.

[SpeedOfSound]

I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.

You seem oddly obsessed with that half-burned part. Surprisingly, I did not know that that kid was burned in that photo until this morning. Just watched a doc on Viet Nam (My Father's Viet Nam- very good doc!) and was wondering if anyone knew how her life turned out. Good to know she made it.

[The_Metatron]

I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.

You seem oddly obsessed with that half-burned part. Surprisingly, I did not know that that kid was burned in that photo until this morning. Just watched a doc on Viet Nam (My Father's Viet Nam- very good doc!) and was wondering if anyone knew how her life turned out. Good to know she made it.

Funny, I just figured I was accurately describing an image, the details about which I've known for decades. Different backgrounds, I suppose.

[The_Metatron]

Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

How do you feel about children 0-12, getting shot and killed by stray bullets off street fights in Chicago? Please reply with depictive emotive force.

This is research.

You are in danger of conflating the violence you've described with assholes jerking off to said violence, aren't you?

[The_Metatron]

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Yeah, I think it's pretty fucking plain that people "in general hardly even fail to act on their sexual attraction". That dataset stops at age 44. The trend all but guarantees the slope will continue in the same direction beyond that age.

Good luck finding the 60 year old man who hasn't had sex with whatever partner fits his alignment.

Mosher, William D., Anjani Chandra, and Jo Jones. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2005.

2. Humans are incapable of intrinsincally (sic) moderating their own behaviour?

Sexual behavior? Over a lifetime? Evidence shows that very few do.

3. That humans in general tend to rape people?

In some proportion, they do. Just over one in a thousand of all people over 12 years old in the US was raped in 2014 (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv14.pdf). Someone's doing this raping aren't they?

If not, then what does it matter that paedophiles are no more or less likely to rape people and why do you think it's ok to persecute paedophiles merely for being paedophiles?

When you find the person who said that, you ask them.

So now that Mosher, Chandra, & Jones have established that something over 98 percent of men, by the age of 44, have acted on their sexual attractions. That number who haven't is something less than 2%. Mosher, Chandra, & Jones' paper doesn't address why that 2% had no sexual contact, they don't discuss whether it was voluntary or involuntary.

Yeah, that pretty well supports a statement that people tend to act on the sexual attractions. Nearly all people who have them.

Now, do you have any support whatsoever to claim any different proportions exist among the subset of men with a sexual orientation we would call pedophilia? Because, in its absence, we can work out that there are roughly 43 million (1.7% of the current adult male population) pedophile men over the age of 18 right now. 42 million of them are going to act before they are 44 years old.

Well, that is, unless you claim they possess much superior self control over their sexual attractions than everyone else has.

So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

I think one thing that you are not considering is that most people who have sex with other people aren't rapists. Paedophiles must rape in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, since children can't consent. What you need to be looking at to back up your argument from statistics therefore, is the segment of the population completely without hope of ever obtaining a consenting sexual partner and looking at what proportion of them decide that rape is the solution to this problem.

Seems like I discussed that earlier, also. See, you're using the quite specific, and nowhere near universal, legal definition of rape as it's connected to age of consent. While I agree with that legal definition, as the line needs to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

However, legal things only matter as to consequences, don't they?

I think the other thing that you are failing to consider is that even if you are able to do this, it won't help you defend the initial statement of yours that started this discussion. Even if you could show that the likelihood of a paedophile offending was high, I doubt you are going to convince anyone reasonable that it should be considered acceptable to kill them just in case.

Once more, I have repeatedly pointed out a rather specific scenario, haven't I? When you find the post where I wrote something like what I highlighted above, we can discuss that. You're probably the third person who is attributing to me something I did not write.

[Nicko]

Since all normal expressions of sexual desire can be fulfilled, people act accordingly and an element of trust is naturally assumed. However, with a pedophile there is no legal outlet and the element of trust simply isn’t there. Regardless of whether it’s justified or not, one errs on the side of caution.

Look, if all you are saying is that paedophiles shouldn't be around children, you're not going to get disagreement from me.

But remember, this thread started from a comment by a member that they would be willing to kill people merely for having a paraphillia that they - and most of us, including myself - would find disgusting (being sexually aroused by the famous picture of Phan Thị Kim Phúc was the specific case).

The counterargument being that "EWW, GROSS!" is not considered to be justification for homicide.

[The_Metatron]

I once served as technical expert for defense counsel on a military court martial of a computer crime case involving child pornography. The exact same offense that epepke did.

During the preparation for that court martial, I saw shit you wouldn't fucking believe. I have direct knowledge of the kinds of monsters that exist out there.

Waddya think, I just woke up one day and figured "there's a group of people I wouldn't mind killing"?

I'm not overly concerned if you people accept this or not. I know for a fact there exist monsters out there who serve no purpose whatsoever in their continued existence. Expose me to the right circumstances, and I am quite likely to act on that knowledge.

[Nicko]

I think one thing that you are not considering is that most people who have sex with other people aren't rapists. Paedophiles must rape in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, since children can't consent. What you need to be looking at to back up your argument from statistics therefore, is the segment of the population completely without hope of ever obtaining a consenting sexual partner and looking at what proportion of them decide that rape is the solution to this problem.

Seems like I discussed that earlier, also.

No. You didn't.

Your links are only about people acting on their sexual desires with presumably consenting partnen

See, you're using the quite specific, and nowhere near universal, legal definition of rape as it's connected to age of consent. While I agree with that legal definition, as the line needs to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

However, legal things only matter as to consequences, don't they?

Unsure if even you know what you're on about at this point.

I think the other thing that you are failing to consider is that even if you are able to do this, it won't help you defend the initial statement of yours that started this discussion. Even if you could show that the likelihood of a paedophile offending was high, I doubt you are going to convince anyone reasonable that it should be considered acceptable to kill them just in case.

Once more, I have repeatedly pointed out a rather specific scenario, haven't I? When you find the post where I wrote something like what I highlighted above, we can discuss that. You're probably the third person who is attributing to me something I did not write.

For the love of fuck, it was the comment that started this thread!

Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Now if this is merely a hyperbolic way to express your personal disgust at such a paraphillia, then you should have said so. Given the post immediately above, I don't think this is the case.

[The_Metatron]

I think one thing that you are not considering is that most people who have sex with other people aren't rapists. Paedophiles must rape in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, since children can't consent. What you need to be looking at to back up your argument from statistics therefore, is the segment of the population completely without hope of ever obtaining a consenting sexual partner and looking at what proportion of them decide that rape is the solution to this problem.

Seems like I discussed that earlier, also.

No. You didn't.

Come on, Nicko. You're better at this than that. Use the search function if you can't be bothered to read what I wrote.

...

Here's another uncomfortable fact for you:

First, shall we assume rape to be non-consensual sex? Then, we get to the legal point that children are by definition unable to consent, don't we? Therefore, any sex with children is rape, right?

Except for the teeny little problem that that legal definition of age of consent is a fairly new thing, isn't it? There were times and places in Roman and Greek culture in which a charge of pedophilia would have no meaning.

...

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Your links are only about people acting on their sexual desires with presumably consenting partnen

See, you're using the quite specific, and nowhere near universal, legal definition of rape as it's connected to age of consent. While I agree with that legal definition, as the line needs to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

However, legal things only matter as to consequences, don't they?

Unsure if even you know what you're on about at this point.

I think the other thing that you are failing to consider is that even if you are able to do this, it won't help you defend the initial statement of yours that started this discussion. Even if you could show that the likelihood of a paedophile offending was high, I doubt you are going to convince anyone reasonable that it should be considered acceptable to kill them just in case.

Once more, I have repeatedly pointed out a rather specific scenario, haven't I? When you find the post where I wrote something like what I highlighted above, we can discuss that. You're probably the third person who is attributing to me something I did not write.

For the love of fuck, it was the comment that started this thread!

Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

Now if this is merely a hyperbolic way to express your personal disgust at such a paraphillia, then you should have said so. Given the post immediately above, I don't think this is the case.

[SpeedOfSound]

I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.

Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.

You seem oddly obsessed with that half-burned part. Surprisingly, I did not know that that kid was burned in that photo until this morning. Just watched a doc on Viet Nam (My Father's Viet Nam- very good doc!) and was wondering if anyone knew how her life turned out. Good to know she made it.

Funny, I just figured I was accurately describing an image, the details about which I've known for decades. Different backgrounds, I suppose.

She doesn't look burned. It does make the picture that much worse. I guess I wasn't paying much attention to have missed this. That was our napalm wasn't it?

[SpeedOfSound]

Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.

How do you feel about children 0-12, getting shot and killed by stray bullets off street fights in Chicago? Please reply with depictive emotive force.

This is research.

You are in danger of conflating the violence you've described with assholes jerking off to said violence, aren't you?

Actually I'm wondering why people get obsessed over child sex and tend to become crazier. I get obsessed over kids getting killed. Stays with me for weeks. Different backgrounds I guess.

[SpeedOfSound]

I once served as technical expert for defense counsel on a military court martial of a computer crime case involving child pornography. The exact same offense that epepke did.

During the preparation for that court martial, I saw shit you wouldn't fucking believe. I have direct knowledge of the kinds of monsters that exist out there.

Waddya think, I just woke up one day and figured "there's a group of people I wouldn't mind killing"?

I'm not overly concerned if you people accept this or not. I know for a fact there exist monsters out there who serve no purpose whatsoever in their continued existence. Expose me to the right circumstances, and I am quite likely to act on that knowledge.

So you were committing the same crime you were prosecuting, in order to prosecute the crime? That never sat well with me.

In Eric's case the FBI agent was committing the same crime as well. Does this give anyone pause?

[The_Metatron]

...

So, unless you can start showing this, empathy or not, there are a lot of kids that are getting fucked.

Pure burden shifting. Not to mention ignoring the difference between consensual sex between adults and raping children as Nicko already pointed out.

Burden shifting, my ass. You've toddled up here and claimed that pedophiles are safe because, well, they have empathy, or what they do is illegal. What you've failed to do is support either of those claims. I've supported claims I've made.

Here's what you don't want to accept:

It only takes once. One time. All any of those 43 million or so extant pedophiles need do is act on their attractions once, and some kid just got fucked, didn't they?

It was you who made the leap that claimed I said everyone fucks everything. I never said it, and don't claim it.

Some time in the next 30 years or so, about 42 million kids are going to be fucked. At least once.