the Childlover Priesthood and it's inherent hypocrisy.

[Shatterhand]

I guess this is the place to discuss this, since i'm not sure of anything else at the moment.  I was on Boychat when i first heard the term "Boylover Priesthood".  It took several years before i got a definition and a few more years before i completely understood what it meant.  When i finally understood i felt a lot of anger at the whole ideal.  It was so stupid and hypocritical in my opinion and that's why it angered me some much at the time.  I was a realist by then and i had a hard time reconciling what i felt was completely denial and hypocrisy. 

For those of you who don't know what the Boylove/ChildLove Priesthood is, it's a pedophilic philosophy that all pedophiles should seek nothing but platonic relationships, and deny any sexual contact even if said minor wants or requests it.  Simply put, a 'Vulcan' style mindset when it comes to childlove.   The premise behind this ideology is that such an ideal will help foster good relations with non-pedos and help us gain social acceptance. 

Now why do i see such hypocrisy in all this?  Because the very definition of what we are (pedophiles) is that we are sexually attracted to children.  We want to have sex with children!  DUH!  If you don't want to have sex with children then you are not a pedophile.  You're just a regular person like everyone else in the world.  There is a difference between denying one's sexuality and denying the pursuit of sexual gratification.  And lets just face, the underlying goal of the Priesthood ideal is to win enough acceptance so we can have sex with children without legal or social repercussions.  In other words...it's a roundabout form of hypocrisy at worst or a cheap gag of a pipe-dream at best!

While I hold nothing against the Priesthood, i hope the ideal never spreads.  It will lead to nothing but frustration, denial, and misery in my opinion.  I would rather live with myself and find peace, then live in denial and have false peace.  And that's my belief for now!

[Jon]

Different people have different control over their desires. I have met many girls the I would like to have sex with but My fear of getting caught and going to jail is much stronger than my sexual desire. Just having people know my true feelings scares the shit of me. Some people are not that scared and willing to let everyone know how they feel but are still too scared to do anything more. and as evident by the massive amount of picture and videos that can be found there are some have little to no fear. so much so that they ended up in jail. While jail itself does not scare me, being beat half to death does. If I am very careful I can sit in front of my computer and take things in hand. If a person want to be celibate that is their choice. I have spent most of my life being celibate. I can handle it, tho I would rather not be celibate. But until the laws and attitudes of society change I must keep my feelings secret.

[Summenformel]

Well, this philosphy doesn't contain sexual activity.It only says: Do not have sex with minor under any circumstances. Now your argument is true,but only if the priest is already a pedophile in the firat place. If he denies it,than you really could say,he's a hipocryt. But just because of somebody is a pedophile (and the definition is not,we want to have sex with children- but we want have sex ONLY with children) it wouldn't be wise to try and f'ck evry child nearby. This only works for regular male humans^^

Now while I understand your point I think that sometimes it's wise to just be quiet and do nothing.If all the Threads are true,you WILL have the opportunity to "get laid"
Tanking evry child you can manage doesn't make you a hipocryt,but in my opinion one becomes a Opprtunist.And the question is: What is worse?

[Shatterhand]

Well, this philosphy doesn't contain sexual activity.It only says: Do not have sex with minor under any circumstances. Now your argument is true,but only if the priest is already a pedophile in the firat place. If he denies it,than you really could say,he's a hipocryt. But just because of somebody is a pedophile (and the definition is not,we want to have sex with children- but we want have sex ONLY with children) it wouldn't be wise to try and f'ck evry child nearby. This only works for regular male humans^^

Now while I understand your point I think that sometimes it's wise to just be quiet and do nothing.If all the Threads are true,you WILL have the opportunity to "get laid"
Tanking evry child you can manage doesn't make you a hipocryt,but in my opinion one becomes a Opprtunist.And the question is: What is worse?

The ultimate questions isn't.  Which is worse?

[TheFullMetal]

(and the definition is not,we want to have sex with children- but we want have sex ONLY with children)

I feel that definition is incorrect. Being a pedophile means that you are sexually attracted to children nothing more and nothing less. I am a pedophile but I am also sexually attracted to non children as well. I do not agree with the Priesthood but I do not find it hypocritical any more then I find the celibacy of normal priests hypocritical. You can be sexually attracted to someone or something and not want to engage in sexual activity with them or it.

[Summenformel]

As I recall in the ICDC (the International Catalouque for Deseases - Yes,Pedophilia is treated like a sickness) a Pedophile is defiend as a Person,who only wants to have intercourse with minor.He isn't attracted to grown ups (therefore are a couple of psychological factors attached to it) and so he seeks sexual fullfillment whit minors.

Now the way I see it, Pedophilia is not a desease or a sickness,so I don't want to get into an analysis of this text. But the very definition seems to be that Pedophilians are sick people.
And taht is just not the case. Because just as you said Fullemtal (BTW: I LOVE you Nickname^^) most Pedophiles are attracted to women/men as well.They just prefer children/minors.

But if that's a reason to call someone sick, then you also have to state: Lesbians and Gay people are sick as well,as are the Bisexual ones. They just prefer their own sex. Nothing wrong with that,I think, nobody's ti judge us.

And to the ultimate question:
I think that this is subjective. While that may be useful for Evolution and someones psyche, one has to consider,what an intercourse can do to the other person.And People who don not consider other people in their actions make the world a worse place (at least for the person they hurt)

But as stated above: One has to make his own desicions and there is not really much,that isn't subjective. And to be honest: If one always considers his fellow humans, he/she might become unfree as time goes on. And that is the sole principle of a human (and this is what makes us to humans - what makes us different from other animals) NEVER GIVE UP LIBERTY!!!

[TheFullMetal]

Homosexuality only a few years ago was on the list of psychological disorders. I think we need to start using the word pedosexual instead of pedophile

[Summenformel]

Homosexuality only a few years ago was on the list of psychological disorders. I think we need to start using the word pedosexual instead of pedophile

Ha! A delightful idea! And yes,you are right, Homosexuality once had the stigma of a sickness^^ However, those people are not sick and neither are we^^

[responsiblepedophile]

Because the very definition of what we are (pedophiles) is that we are sexually attracted to children.  We want to have sex with children!  DUH!

Here's where you you lose me.  The idea might be appealing, but reality is messy and complicated.  I wouldn't inflict what some of these kids go through on my worst enemy.

If you don't want to have sex with children then you are not a pedophile.  You're just a regular person like everyone else in the world. 

Again, not true.

And lets just face, the underlying goal of the Priesthood ideal is to win enough acceptance so we can have sex with children without legal or social repercussions. 

That's a very cynical thing to say, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[responsiblepedophile]

I have met many girls the I would like to have sex with but My fear of getting caught and going to jail is much stronger than my sexual desire.

Seriously?  The well-being of the kid doesn't figure into your attitude at all?

[responsiblepedophile]

Now the way I see it, Pedophilia is not a desease or a sickness,so I don't want to get into an analysis of this text. But the very definition seems to be that Pedophilians are sick people.

I guess my attitude is that they won't get any mileage out of this paradigm.  It's only useful in a political sense.

I think that this is subjective. While that may be useful for Evolution and someones psyche, one has to consider,what an intercourse can do to the other person.And People who don not consider other people in their actions make the world a worse place (at least for the person they hurt)

Hear, hear!

[Jon]

I have met many girls the I would like to have sex with but My fear of getting caught and going to jail is much stronger than my sexual desire.

Seriously?  The well-being of the kid doesn't figure into your attitude at all?

The way the laws are it does not matter what my attitude toward the well being of kids is. If the laws change then my attitude becomes more important.

[dark_passenger]

Pheww... that's a relief! My parents will be so pleased to hear that I'm not a pedophile because I don't want to have sex with kids!  :

Sorry for the sarcasm but a few of the statements here make no sense.

Because a pedophile doesn't want to engage in sexual activity with a minor, they aren't a pedophile? That makes no sense. Myself, for example, I don't have any intentions of engaging in a sexual relationship with a child. That doesn't mean my sexual desires aren't any less real or legitimate than a pedophile that engages with child love.

I guess I fail to see where the hypocrisy exists. This "priesthood" is simply looking out for the well being of the child. Even with the most caring pedophile, that takes their time, performs the proper education and does things with the most loving care... once society makes the child feel like they were victimized, the damage is done and it was caused, albeit indirectly, by our actions. Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying that an active pedophile is any less caring than a non-active pedophile because that simply isn't the case. But there are huge risks involved in practicing and it's something I'm not willing to take. Again, this doesn't make me any less of a pedophile than one that is alright with taking these risks. No hypocrisy involved.

[GLover]

The only thing that would make a self-styled Childlover Priest a hypocrite is if that same priest either engaged in sexual conduct with a child, or encouraged others to do so. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing the opposite; nothing more, nothing less. I like the idea and where they want people to head, although could I do it myself? Maybe, maybe not. I've been "child celibate" for a while now, mostly through not wanting to get caught and not having a decent chance for practicing properly and safely, but I would love a relationship with a child again. It was one of the happiest moments of my life, and brought joy to both me and my brief lover.

So no, there is nothing inherently hypocritical with the Childlover Priesthood or their message. What is inherent with it is the difficulty of going your whole life without doing something "inappropriate", whether it's discreet or not. The recent cases of child abuse within the Catholic priesthood highlight this difficulty nicely.

[studly]

I'd have to  agree that the use of the word hypocrisy is not the most apt choice.

However, I have to agree with OP's basic point. Being a pedosexual who won't have sex with kids is like being a homosexual who won't go near dick.

There's something fundamentally self-hating about both.

I'll agree that in the current social and legal climate it is incredibly risky for the pedophile and potentially damaging for the child. So, in general, no I don't wave a banner and say fuck all the kids your want.

In general, the responsible thing to do is look and don't touch.

But that in no way means there is something wrong with a responsible caring pedophile acting on his/her desires with a willing partner.

I just don't recommend doing it where you can be caught.

And, that's really the issue. If there were no legal consequences for pedosexuality, then more people would act on those desires. The law serves as a deterrent against what many people want.

In general, taboos do not develop because the majority of people don't desire the taboo. The contrary, a taboo is created because of that common desire.
The real hypocrites are those who secretly desire kids and publicly support laws denying their sexuality.