Our pedo identities!

[Grizzly_Bare]

Hello pedofam

Since I have been at PSC, one thing that has always piqued my interest is when people have discussed their views on convervativism and how it relates to our broader definitions and understandings of pedoness and our pedo identity. Blame it on my OCD but I am the type of person that has a strong need to compartmentalize/organize/categorize lol ... and if I am being completely honest, doing this was very exciting and enjoyable for me (⸝⸝⸝O﹏ O⸝⸝⸝)

So, ladies and gentlemen, here is my proposal on the different types of pedo identities!

What are all your thoughts on the below? Do you find one category relevant to your identity? Do you think any categories are unnecessary? All views are welcome, if you absolutely hate this I still want to hear it - this is absolutely a work in progress!

●○●○●○●○●○●●○●○●○●○●○●●○●○●○●○●○●●○●○●○●○●○●●○●○●○●○●○●●○●○●○●○●○●

[By moral boundaries, I mean recognition in some way of internal ethical limits and looking out for children's well being, welfare and autonomy. I am still trying to figure this out and thought it might be a good idea to get everyone's views on this first! if you have a better definition of moral boundaries or better way to describe it, let me know!]

»»———-Pedos who are active but have moral boundaries———-««
☞ Parental love pedos: Pedos who see their pedoness as an extension (or eroticism) of parental love.
☞ White knight pedos: Pedos who see their pedoness as a moral duty to defend and care for children, being advocates or protectors of children.

»»———-Pedos who are not active and have moral boundaries———-««
☞ Virtuous pedos: Pedos who are not active due to the inherent harm caused to the child from adult/child sex.
☞ Compelled restraint pedos: Pedos who feel compelled to restrain themselves due to discovery harm but don't believe that adult/child sex can cause inherent harm to the child otherwise.

»»———-Pedos who are active but don't have moral boundaries———-««
☞ Selfish pedos: Pedos who go out and rape/molest children without any concern for their well being.

»»———-Pedos who are not active but due to self-protection———-««
☞ Self protecting pedos: Pedos who avoid being active because of the risk of legal/societal consequences but if they had an opportunity where no one would find out they would take it. These pedos generally don't believe that adult/child sex can cause harm to the child.

[Lillab]

First, I don't like dividing people up into buckets. It always oversimplifies reality. It can still be a useful exercise in that it can help think through different scenarios and explore a subject a little deeper. It also can help create language making it easier to talk about what is going on. But as a destination, it will never mirror reality.

Here you are exploring two different dimensions: active and moral boundaries. For each, you are generally dividing people up into yes/no, but there is a wide spectrum. Do you avoid all contact and relationships? Connections can be emotional, physical, romantic, or sexual. Or the Greeks divide love into three categories. Are we talking about things like holding hands, kissing, and cuddling, having a clearly romantic relationship? Fantasizing about each other? Masturbating together? Masturbating each other? Oral? Penetration? Different people draw the line at different places, which might change depending on the age of the child, or their understanding and development.

Next we have moral boundaries. On the most mild side, we have things like consuming CP, and from there violating without the knowledge of the child like voyeurism or touching and filming a sleeping child. These things don't show full concern for the child, but they do show some concern. Or if you do have sexual contact, to what degree are you manipulating them or taking advantage of ignorance? How well have you explained the consequences and let them decide for themselves? What other pressures are involved? And this goes all the way to the other extreme of people who torture, humiliate, and devastate children. You could argue that anyone who doesn't actively seek the suffering of children has some degree of a moral boundaries.

Finally, there is a difference between having a moral code and actually living by that moral code. There are different levels of screwing up, and how you react to such situations. And what about when any of these factors are changing over time? Perhaps your morality is shifting. Or your concern for a child changes based on anger, horniness, or substance abuse? Many people depending on the situation will shift between your different categories.

[OneLove]

It's too complex a subject to divide things into so few categories. I'm not active, but it's through no choice of my own. If I had a situation where kids were in and out of my life, I'd probably be unsuccessful at keeping my hands to myself. Why would I even want to keep my hands to myself? Fear of police. I've been there a couple of times and it's not fun. My brain tells me that any activity with kids should be initiated by them and be for their pleasure, but my hands are greedy and want to touch little girls. If I had an amenable wife, I'd probably groom my daughter from birth.

What I'm saying is that I'm not active, but my morality is sketchy. I want only the best for a child, but there's also a greedy, impulsive side of me that is difficult to control. I'm a good example of a Jeckyll and Hyde duality. Probably most of us are.

And what does "active" mean? It could be anything from flirtation to full on fucking. If that's the case, I've never been active. But I'd like to be. But I wouldn't like to be. Maybe I'd like to be. And so on.

Lillab summed it up better than me. I'm just rambling.

[hö]

You know, sometimes categorizing people actually helps. It helps making the world easier to grasp despite its complexity, especially when it comes to the ever-moving behavioral patterns of humans. I do keep a few of these buckets to put people into myself, mostly basic stuff like friends, family, people I know, people with special skills, people to stay away from etc.

It's human nature to do this and a good example are friends. There's a word for this bucket (friends) and there's a pretty big social construct behind it. But there are more buckets out there; colors, fruits, animals, feelings, websites and so on and so forth. All these categories have one thing in common and that is that they are based on things that exist and have something in common that allows us to organize them neatly.

And I think that's where it becomes difficult organizing people and putting them in buckets based on their behavior. It's far to complex to break down niche categories even further, although we can attempt doing so. But whoever does so will soon discover that we end up needing so many categories that the sheer numbers of buckets defies the purpose of categorizing them. Even introducing the idea of a spectrum doesn't really help because a spectrum is essentially a one-dimensional construction that allows us to put two buckets into one category. Sure, a matrix might help, merging four bucksts if it's two-dimensional, but what if that spectrum becomes so complex that you need to break it up into categories to help understand it? Yeah, right...

Human behavior can't simply be depicted with numbers and graphs (although I do share your obsession with that, I love Excel and the things it can do). But since the brain likes shortcuts it grabs them buckets and stuffs them with people - and that's adorable.

[stalker]

☞ Self protecting pedos: Pedos who avoid being active because of the risk of legal/societal consequences but if they had an opportunity where no one would find out they would take it. These pedos generally don't believe that adult/child sex can cause harm to the child.

What about those who do believe that, but couldn't care less?

[OneLove]

I'm sort of in this category. I don't believe sexual pleasure is inherently bad for kids, but in reality it is, only because society keeps hammering that it is. And there are plenty of assholes out there who mistreat kids for their own pleasure that keep our reputation somewhere down with slugs and maggots.

[Lillab]

I don't believe sexual pleasure is inherently bad for kids, but in reality it is, only because society keeps hammering that it is. And there are plenty of assholes out there who mistreat kids for their own pleasure that keep our reputation somewhere down with slugs and maggots.

I agree with this. If society were completely sexually liberated, with no taboos or shame, then I wouldn't think it at all immoral to give sexual pleasure to a baby or the mentally disabled. As long as the interaction is positive, I see nothing wrong with it. But society has seriously complicated the issue. Because of the taboos, shame and judgment, there are within our society appropriate and inappropriate times for sexual expression, and not following the social standards comes with dire consequences. Consent becomes more than just whether the experience is positive and accepted, but whether someone understands and accepts the long-term social consequences, including keeping secrets, controlling your behavior in public, and ignoring the haters. This is why so many individuals must be denied one of the great joys life has to offer, and that makes me sad.

[OneLove]

It seems the accepted norm has become get married at 30, have one token child at 40. Begin sex in college, stop after menopause. We have a rather narrow time frame there.