Who is the creepiest person on A2K?

Blondie....

I will drive past your house and if the lights are all down
I'll see who's around
One way or another, I'm gonna find ya'
I'm gonna get ya', get ya', get ya', get ya'
One way or another, I'm gonna win ya'
I'll get ya', I'll get ya'
One way or another, I'm gonna see ya'
I'm gonna meet ya', meet ya', meet ya', meet ya'
One day maybe next week ,I'm gonna meet ya'
I'll meet ya' ah
And if the lights are all out I'll follow your bus downtown
See who's hangin' out

Do pedophiles have a particular look? I wouldn't suppose Bill to look like one. And, to suggest that someone who vehemently opposes your perverse thinking does is creepy in itself.

I thought you guys were supposedly just average looking guys who could sink into a crowd and not slither out until some poor, innocent child happens to catch your fancy.

Earlier in this thread Setanta was furiously waving his hand and saying "Pick me! Pick me!" and, at the time, I thought it would have been a bit pretentious to pick him, being that he was a regular member and most people have a modicum of respect for the guy, but then I got to thinking and I really do believe that he is the creepiest guy on this site.

Something about his arrogance.

Color me paranoid.

gus, is burger your cat?

Are we speaking in code, Chai? You want to go down on me?

Just say so , girl!


Damn! We're friends.

So you obviously haven't read the entire thread.

Entire thread too good for you?

Click above and make sure your volume is turned up. Seriously.

Don't mess with me, Chai.

I've seen that damned cat.

I'm touched Gus . . . i had always sort of thought . . . well . . . that you didn't really like me . . .

Actually, now that you mention it, I read that some study found that paedophiles are shorter on average than ordinary adults, which supports the view that paedophilia is a product of nature, not just nurture.

Hebephiles (like me) are somewhere in between.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/269404

hebephiles who love to watch child pornography are paedophiles

Okay. But those that don't... aren't. I don't, and so technically I am not. But I've been using 'paedophile' to refer to hebephiles and paedophiles, and 'child porn' to refer to porn featureing prepubescent or pubescent children. To make things simpler.

you are only 20?
You have not even finished growing your pubic hair yet. Of course you are going to be attracted to kids.. you are one.

agrote,

Given your age you may want to be very careful about boxing yourself into any chronophilia label. Being in your 20s and being attracted to post-pubescent teens is not that weird. Post-pubescent teens are sexually attractive to a wide range of people with normal sexual orientation.

I have a very traditional sexual orientation and still remember "realizing" in my very early 20s that 17-year old girls are now off limits even though they were, and sometimes still are, sexually attractive to me. That's not even a chronophilia because of the small age differences but the point I'm trying to get to you is that even healthy normal adults will occasionally find a pubescent teenager attractive. Many of them might feel very ugly about it for doing so but it doesn't make you a freak.

Even if your preference seems to be for pubescent teens the discordance between your chronological age and your professed sexual age is small. You may be assuming a sexual orientation that you don't really have and while I agree with you in that there's a strong case to be made that nature plays a role in these sexual orientations there is also a strong case to be made that nurture plays a role. Like almost any good "nature vs. nurture" question the answer is "both".

You may be nurturing a small predisposition by boxing yourself in and rationalizing the more harmful side of your preferences. If you have ever felt strong sexual attraction to normal-looking 20-year olds then you may grow out of your chronophilia entirely.

And I'd also like to caution you in your debating. I think you are being sloppy and tossing around colloquial terms that harm your ability to debate anything reasonably. There's a big difference between pedophilia and other chronophilia and by using colloquial meanings of terms like pedophile unnecessarily stirs up emotions like anger and fear and make it harder for you to reach understanding with others and the lack of understanding itself can serve as "nurture" for chronophilia by driving you away from trying to accept whatever your innate orientation might be toward trying to defend consequences of even more discordant orientations.

If I recall right, Agrote once claimed to be 22 (or 23).

Agrote does not write like a young person, nor does he argue like one. Nor does he sound like he is just discovering his sexuality. I would hazard a guess that he has known his sexual preference for well over a decade, if not two or more. He argues like a person who has thought long and hard about how to justify his appetites. His arguments have a practiced, honed and focused edge to it.

It is very easy to claim any age on the net.

i don't know about creepiest, but agrote sickens me

He's also chronically dishonest. In Boom's thread, he has said that he wants to have sexual relations with pubescent girls. Here, he has a different story to tell. It seems that as he continues at this site, he just give more and more reasons to despise him, and more and more reason to consider him fundamentally dishonest.

The wanting isn't the problem...well, it IS a problem, but I don't think it is helpful to anyone (as I argued in the paedophile thread a long time ago) to vilify people who are upfront about such things (though I take Robert's point if Agrote is in his twenties....I cannot see where the 20 notion came from, though).

In fact, I think the more upfront someone can be in acknowledging such desires the more it opens up possibilities for them to manage such desires. For example, if Agrote IS in his twenties, Robert's information may be of great benefit to him, and to adolescent girls. The vilification drives people into secrecy, and the world of the abuse justifiers, as well as doing terrible harm to the person vilified.

Where Agrote becomes problematic is in his justification of child porn, not his acknowledgement of his desires.

Oh creepy me. You and Chai should get along well.

However, you're out of the woods on my list. In consideration of Robert's reasoning here, and Deb's reaction to the other piece of garbage; I'm going to have to give him the nod. Though you are both thoroughly disgusting, he's more convincingly deranged.

This applies, when it applies, in the realm of face-to-face communication. The online arena is one of anonymity and impunity. I suggest to you that, in fact, it is possible that a paedophile might enjoy the experience, even if it involves vilification, perhaps even because it involves vilification. It's rather like the Hollywood dictum that there is no such thing as bad publicity. For an attention whore, any attention is good, especially in the online world where, once again, real anonymity prevails, and people can say things with impunity.



Amen to that, and i would go a step further to say that this particular individual disgusts me because he seeks constantly to portray paedophiles as a misunderstood minority of essentially harmless people who have fallen prey to nothing more than a baseless social taboo.