Universal Sims...

[darkangel]

What I really don't understand, is, why everybody is/was asskissing Delphy in that topic at the end. They were all like *it's not that bad* *we all make mistakes* *whatever*...I'm sorry, he admitted having a thing for "older teenage girls"...
and he's like..."when pretty much everybody has fucked up at some point in time"
Oh yeah. I have fucked up many times. That did not include child pornography. Holy shizzles, I don't care if the kids were 6 or 16, it's child pornography and he even said he's like them young, so I think there is NO excuse for him. And I don't care if that was 5 years or 5 days ago. Pedos just don't get cured. They don't. Ever.

I'm sorry I totally ranted. I just have an issue with these people as I got sexually abused as a 5-year old. :roll:

[Quorneater]

I think the report was trying to make it clear that a number of the photos found on his computer were of actual children (not just "technically" underage).  In his defence Delphy said those were not the images he had been looking for or using they just happened to come along with the others that he did want, which were still illegal but were at least post-pubertal teens.

I don't have any evidence Delphy was not being truthful, but I hope he knows now that if he supports sites that "also" have young child material he will be indirectly damaging children anyway even if it was not his intention.

Actually I have somewhat less problem with Delphy having made a one-off mistake like this than I do with his persistent arrogance as the fansite-owner-who-must-not-be-questioned.

[Diala]

Pedos just don't get cured. They don't. Ever.

So no matter the root causes of their pedophilia, how much therapy they're given, or even if they put the whole incident behind them and honestly changed their lives, they're still Pedos and hence still deserve damnation for what they repented against?

I am sorry, but such defeatist attitudes disgust me. I know, I know, you suffered a horrible experience in the past, and I'm sorry for that. But we should aim for the decrease of all harmful behaviors, no matter if they seem "permanent." If we humans just deemed some illnesses "incurable" and left it at that, what kind of society would we be living in today?

No, I am not standing up for Pedos. I am standing up for all who wish to help themselves, and the hard work of scientists and psychologists who wish to provide that help.

[darkangel]

Pedos just don't get cured. They don't. Ever.

So no matter the root causes of their pedophilia, how much therapy they're given, or even if they put the whole incident behind them and honestly changed their lives, they're still Pedos and hence still deserve damnation for what they repented against?

I am sorry, but such defeatist attitudes disgust me. I know, I know, you suffered a horrible experience in the past, and I'm sorry for that. But we should aim for the decrease of all harmful behaviors, no matter if they seem "permanent." If we humans just deemed some illnesses "incurable" and left it at that, what kind of society would we be living in today?

No, I am not standing up for Pedos. I am standing up for all who wish to help themselves, and the hard work of scientists and psychologists who wish to provide that help.

I have psychology class and we just had a class about pedophilia...it's being said that the relapse quota is extremely high. I only got german articles but you can say it's about 50%. That's the double percentage than a "normal" sexual abuser.

Einmal einschlägig straffällig gewordene Pädophile unterliegen einer hohen Rückfallgefahr. Internationale Studien haben ergeben, dass die Rückfallquote bei ihnen mit etwa 40 bis 50 Prozent etwa doppelt so hoch ist wie die durchschnittliche Quote für Sexualstraftäter von 22 Prozent (Egg 2001).

So one out of two have a relapse. I'm sorry. Does hating pedophiles make me a bad person? In Germany, there are so many kids raped and murdered these days because some psychologists say *that they've recovered* and release them just so that the already convicted person can rape another kid. How awesome. Let's believe in the good of all people. Yay.

I'm sorry, I believe in the bad of all people. Everyone is evil somewhere, somehow. I rather codemn too much than put someone I care about at risk.

[redisenchanted]

Well there is a difference between 16 and 6, as most 16 years old have gone through most of the physical changes associated with puberty, paedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted  to prepubescent or peripubescent (around the average age of puberty) children. You can debate the morality of being attracted to 16 year olds but it is not paedophilia as most 16 year olds are more physically adult than child. And while paedophiles don't get cured, many, possibly even most (figures vary wildly and it's not an area where accurate figures are really possible) never act on their desires and many are capable of controlling their behaviour and avoiding contact with children and child pornography. And there are differences in re-offending rates between different types of paedophile.

Firstly they were under 16, because at the time in England, that was the age of consent. If I'm not mistaken, it's now 18.

I think some of the pictures were obviously children, here's why. His ex-wife found them and reported them. If they were not obviously children, why did she do that? If they were 15 year olds that looked like 20 yr olds, how did the cops know they were younger? Either they knew the identity of the girls involved (pretty unlikely) or the pictures were obviously of children.

He knew they were children, his defense wasn't that he or anyone else would assume they were of age it was that he was "too lazy" to click delete.

[MMEStalker]

redisenchanted, sorry, I don't think I made myself clear there, wasn't referring to Delphy and his crime, just disagreeing with part of what darkangel said about paedophiles generally.

[Pescado]

Pedos just don't get cured. They don't. Ever.

So no matter the root causes of their pedophilia, how much therapy they're given, or even if they put the whole incident behind them and honestly changed their lives, they're still Pedos and hence still deserve damnation for what they repented against?

No amount of therapy known to modern science will change the underlying wiring. You can no more cure someone of being a pedophile than you can cure someone of being gay. What the INCIDENT is in the first place has something to do with it though. In Delphy's case, he looked porn. Woo. While certainly tasteless, the judge did not find him to be a danger to anyone. I, for one, see the matter as being the closest thing we have to a thought crime, and question whether it was right to punish him for his choice in viewing material at all. Now child molesters, on the other hand, deserve to be put to death. Delphy's past behavior, on the other hand, hasn't harmed anyone (that we know of, anyway). His more recent behavior, on the other hand, seems somewhat fraudulent.

[darkangel]

I agree with you Pescado but you haven't heard of the "steps" a pedophil takes, right?

First they just look at childporn...maybe just porn at first...nothing "bad" as y'all say...then they start watching...kids on playgrounds. Because they can't get the kick out of pictures anymore, they have to SEE them for REAL. And the last step would be...well...guess. Abusing a child.

I'm not saying everyone who watches (child)porn becomes an abuser. I can't find the homepage nor the article but there was sth about that. I admit, that the person also has to have some sort of trigger to become actif and that the person has to have some tendencies...still.


I really lack soem english vocabulary here.

[Aquamarine]

Actually, I think *most* of those viewing child pornography don't go on to become child abusers.

That said, I don't think Delphy's alleged sexual deviancy has much to do with the thread beyond whether or not any of these situations have direct links to it. And since we don't have that information, there's no point in speculating on whether or not they do.

Now, back to business. Any updates on "Nathan" himself?

[MMEStalker]

I agree with you Pescado but you haven't heard of the "steps" a pedophil takes, right?
First they just look at childporn...maybe just porn at first...nothing "bad" as y'all say...then they start watching...kids on playgrounds. Because they can't get the kick out of pictures anymore, they have to SEE them for REAL. And the last step would be...well...guess. Abusing a child.
I really lack soem english vocabulary here.

I think the vocabulary problem is that you seem to be using the word paedophile to mean someone who sexually abuses children, paedophiles are people with a sexual desire for children, it doesn't mean someone who abuses children, not all paedophiles act on their desires. Not all paedophiles take the steps towards child abuse you describe and not all people who sexually abuse children began the way you describe either.

[missangelica]

As for the UniversalSims issue, the donation given amount is still listed as the same and we haven't heard a peep out of "Nathan"..

[darkangel]

I agree with you Pescado but you haven't heard of the "steps" a pedophil takes, right?
First they just look at childporn...maybe just porn at first...nothing "bad" as y'all say...then they start watching...kids on playgrounds. Because they can't get the kick out of pictures anymore, they have to SEE them for REAL. And the last step would be...well...guess. Abusing a child.
I really lack soem english vocabulary here.

I think the vocabulary problem is that you seem to be using the word paedophile to mean someone who sexually abuses children, paedophiles are people with a sexual desire for children, it doesn't mean someone who abuses children, not all paedophiles act on their desires. Not all paedophiles take the steps towards child abuse you describe and not all people who sexually abuse children began the way you describe either.

Helloooo?
Oh great. You just capped out my explanation where I said

I'm not saying everyone who watches (child)porn becomes an abuser. I can't find the homepage nor the article but there was sth about that. I admit, that the person also has to have some sort of trigger to become actif and that the person has to have some tendencies...still.

Please. If you quote, do it right and don't give me that bull when I exactly said that. You can't just ignore parts what I said EXACTLY what you are just telling me that I ignored.

I really don't think that this is worth discussing, especially if the other person ignores parts of what I said completely. This is not even discussing. Geez, gimme a break.

[Jojoba]

Firstly they were under 16, because at the time in England, that was the age of consent. If I'm not mistaken, it's now 18.

The age of consent in England is 16, and has been for a long time (me thinks).

[fourohfourerror]

What I want to know, is if Universal Sims is a paysite, why isn't it in the booty?    And why can't I spell?

[Aquamarine]

Because no one subscribed. I had no idea Universal Sims even existed before this situation, and judging from the (lack of) forum activity, I'd say most people hadn't heard of it either. Which makes me wonder how Nathan got so much money so fast, and from who exactly. Assuming any of this is real, of course.