I like zines. This one was sort of neat, although I miss the drawn art from old zines.
A few thoughts:
1. A good point was made: most child molesters may not be pedophiles. Rapists, killers, etc. get off on the pain of others, and oftentimes do not mind the category of victim.
2. However, even if you are attracted to children, this suggests something "off" in the head. Probably something to be fought, not embraced.
I have to disagree here. Attraction is a subset of fascination. Fascinations can be fought, usually because they signal something else.
We are in cause-effect land here, and the cause is often not proximate to the effect.
The only sensible therapy I can think of -- most therapists are just midwives to suicide, as far as I can tell -- is to have the person understand the hidden motivation behind their impulses.
If you find out why you have the attraction and it is an effect of something else, in my experience, the attraction fades.
People have a small experience with this when they become fixated on someone, a crush or something more pathological.
When the dependency and obsession fade, the underlying need can be revealed in the half-light before dawn.
Depends on what motivates it.
Some are biological. For example, I think most gay people are wired that way.
Pedophilic attraction strikes me more as a trauma response, separate from the true predators who just want to hurt and crush innocence out of a fatalistic selfish rage.
Most of those do not destroy children sexually; they simply become teachers.
Another loophole: the goal could be to capture a child and wait for it to mature so that it could be a partner. Sort of like the Islamic guy and his nine-year-old wife.
But then, the goal is not the child itself, but the mature child.
Similarly with pederasty, is the goal the lifelong relationship, or the child?
@TheSomebodies @laura @errante
In the meantime, we have no accurate data on _who_ is fucking dogs but we know some people out there are fucking dogs.
@TheSomebodies @laura @errante
If that was humans fucking humans normally, we would not have races in the first place.
Bad logic.
But agreed on the zoophiles.
@errante @Foxyanarchism @laura @TheSomebodies @amerika @prouddegenerate I've heard there is more variation within a group than between groups.
Let's use chess as an example. Two sides, black and white. Within the white pieces there are 6 variations, king queen pawn rook bishop and knight, that's a lot of variation within the group. Now look at the other pieces and you will find they have the same variation. Now look at the groups side by side, as a whole, is there more variation between the two groups, or within the two groups?