Pedophile safe haven!

[snopes]

Comment: I check your site every time I get a forward from someone.
Thanks for being so awesome! Recently, I received this email from a
friend. I can't bring myself to visit the website. Would you please
check it out? Thank you so much!

---------------------------------------------------

Recently, a very serious problem has been brought to the attention of
several members of cafemom. It is a very heinous website called . This
website is a safe haven for pedophiles. The heading
on their main page reads, "A Celebration of the Splendor of Little Girls".
This website includes links to pictures, or "art" as they call it, of
little girls, confessional blogs, a directory of resources for pedophiles
(for "both boylovers and girl lovers, as well as anybody else looking for
information about pedophilia and consensual child love"), as well as many
other links. This site has a manifesto, stating demands to the government
to legalize pedophilia. http://www.puellula.com/Main.html is the site
name, and it had all the information to clearly file a report as well for
the indecency.

The most disturbing, though, is a link to a page title Sugar and Spice
that is specifically for little girls who have "fallen in love" with a
pedophile. This site is set up to
draw in little girls. It looks like any other fun little girly page. It
tells girls that it is okay to be "in love" with an adult, and it is okay
to have sex with an adult. A quote from the page: "Remember that
information helps you to make the choices that are right for YOU. Don't
let other people think for you, YOU know yourself better than anybody
else, so YOU should be the one to decide whom to love and how to use your
mind and your body." It has a questions and answers section, downloads,
and a page to links for more information.

If this information doesn't turn your stomach, hopefully what I'm about to
say will. This website claims to be legal. There is even a link on their
webpage to report them to authorities. Here is a quote from that page:
"Are you outraged by what you have just been reading? Do you think that
sites like this should be banned? Do you think that, despite
the fact that there is nothing illegal on this site whatsoever, its
creators should be locked up? Do you support severely curtailing the
constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and the suspension
of civil rights in the execution of draconian laws against law-abiding
citizens whose worldview happens to be different than yours? If so, you
are in good company! This site has already been reported numerous times to
a number of law enforcement organizations including the FBI, the RCMP and
Interpol. If you are undeterred by the fact that this site is already
well-known within the law enforcement community and that it is in no way
illegal, and you still want to do your civic duty and exercise your
freedom of speech by denouncing the free speech of another citizen, let us
help you. Here we have compiled a list of contacts for a number of law
enforcement bodies that you might wish
to contact. We have even included a form that will allow you to contact
several of these agencies at once!"

People, I need your help. I am asking you to do at least one of a few
things:

1) Please repost this bulletin. Maybe with the wide circulation that
myspace provides, we can raise awareness, initiate outrage, and get this
thing shut down. We fill out and pass on surveys, poems about killing pit
bulls, etc. Don't you think this warrants the same kind of attention?

2) Report this site to cybertipline.com, and sign the petition at
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1174125902. You
can sign this as "anonymous" if you wish.

3) Make your local authorities aware of this website. Several moms on
cafemom have alerted their local authorities and many have been very
interested and grateful for the heads-up.

4) Contact your congressman and
senator. Another disturbing fact about this site is, at the bottom of
their page, they openly support Barack Obama for the presidential
election. I am sure Mr. Obama would be very displeased to know of this,
therefore I, as well as other moms, have already brought this to his
attention. If we can get other senators and congressmen in the know, it
very well could initiate talk and possibly action by our government.

5) Send this bulletin, or write your own, to your local media. Just as
moms have caught the interest of their local authorities, they have also
done so with their local news. Several moms have reported back that their
news has hopped on board with this and followed up with research and
interviews. This way parents without the resources we have with the
internet and myspace can be made aware of this.

6) If the information that I have provided doesn't affect you to
your core, then please go to this site so you can see for yourself what we
are dealing with here. I guarantee you will be disgusted as much as I.

Again, I am asking for your help with this. If you have a daughter or son,
a little sister or brother, niece or nephew, or even just know a child,
then you are affected by this. These people are preying on these children.
They say that this disgusting behavior is okay. It is not.

If you've made it this far through this bulletin, then I thank you for
your time and attention. Just by reading this, you've helped me take one
more step to my mission being accomplished. Please, if nothing else, pass
this on.

I've heard of these kind of people. They believe that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and as well as a burden. I know there are pedophile sympathizers out there.

[songs78]

If pedophiles want to change the law, then all the power to them. Age of consent is different in different parts of the world and what was proper now wasn't proper at one point.

It's not that much different than people proposing legalization of drugs. People should be able to advocate change the law even if the view point is a very unpopular one.

I visited the site. Yes, he advocates "consensual" sexual relationships between adults & children. He says he obeys the laws for the district he lives in & suggests other pedophiles do the same. But he has a "manifesto" clearly stating his wish to change some of the laws around age of consent & presents rational arguments for why. So, it's not a child porn site.
I didn't try any links, I didn't want anything popping up or having ads chase me around my screen, or get caught in a sting or something.
Laws of free speech probably mean he & his cronies should be permitted to discuss the way they believe the world should be. There are laws already in place to prevent them displaying explicit photos & whatnot.
I never recommend trying to ban a thing (such as a book in your school library) if you haven't actually read it through yourself.

O.k., I got up my courage to see what really was there. Yes, he's definitely trying to make the site appeal to little girls, with the colours & hearts & flowers & all that. But the "stories" of girls in love with older people had been removed & what's left is probably all legal: links to all kinds of fun girl websites (nonsexual) and to websites providing information on sex & reproductive health.
Definitely don't encourage your girls to visit this site, he sneaks in propoganda about how narrow-minded adults believe all "girl-lovers" are bad child m olesters, & keeps emphasizing about the "very special girl you are", which is what molesters tell their prey - flatter them, that they are chosen alone out of all their friends & how beautiful they are, etc.
But a child would have to go to this site, & I hope we are all mindful of where our children are when they are on the web.

[Sister Ray]

I know of the guy, because one of his parts of the site is devoted to missing girls. It has created quite an uproar in the missing person community. I don't agree with the opinions expressed, but if he's not doing anything to actual children I think it's best to ignore him.

Sister "saying something unpopular is not illegal" Ray

[Rachael]

I hate sites like this. Why? Because they go against what I've always believed, that pedophiles are sick, evil people who are not good for children at all. Then I come to sites like this where these men genuinely seem to care about, almost worship, the children they "love."

I do think what they do is wrong, but there's nothing illegal about the site.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Rachael

I hate sites like this. Why? Because they go against what I've always believed, that pedophiles are sick, evil people who are not good for children at all. Then I come to sites like this where these men genuinely seem to care about, almost worship, the children they "love."

That shouldn't be surprising - it's what "love" means after all... of course acting on that love in a sexual way is harmful (or "considered harmful in our society", as the people making the site would no doubt say) but I've always found it weird that the immediate reaction to a paedophile is to assume that they're deliberately going to harm or endanger or kill your child. Twisted and "unhealthy" love, sure, but it still doesn't follow that harm is meant...

(I haven't looked at the site itself by the way.)

(eta) There's a new "controversial" drama called Secret Life about a convicted paedophile; this article made the point that if paedophiles were obviously "sick and evil" then they wouldn't get near most victims in the first place:

'This is not a sympathetic portrait of a paedophile. Matthew wasn't cast because we wanted to have an "attractive" paedophile. It was as a result of what experts told us. Monsters don't get near kids; "nice" men do. So our paedophile isn't a stereotypical sleazebag in a raincoat. But, without question, we portray him as a character who is clearly a threat to children. So if you sympathise at all with him, it is only with his commitment to rehabilitation.'

(There was another interview that I was looking for, where the actor described a semi-improvised scene where he had to try to approach young girls at a fairground, and realised that he would basically have to be charming and funny and approach it in the same way as trying to chat up anybody.)

None of this would make the website any less creepy though. I've not looked at it, as I said, but it doesn't sound as though it's geared towards recognising the harm and minimising the behaviour...

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by songs78

It's not that much different than people proposing legalization of drugs. People should be able to advocate change the law even if the view point is a very unpopular one.

Uh, yes. It is different. Wanting to legalize drugs for your own use is a situation in which your consent only is required. No one else is necessarily affected.

In consent laws, we recognize that children aren't adults and haven't acquired the ability to rationally give full and informed consent. These groups would have to advance arguments that, indeed, children are capable of such, and would have to provide solid, scientific research showing that they are.

These types are appealing to feelings and emotions, not rationality, and feelings and emotions are a very bad basis for public policy.

[Jonny T]

Ryda, my take on songs' post was that it was addressing the existence of the site itself, rather than the content, ie that it was a political advocacy site promoting a socially unacceptable view but was not in itself part of an offence. the comparison to drugs was a comparison of sites advocating unpopular opinions, not a comparison of those opinions themselves.

or something.

[Dactyl]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

These types are appealing to feelings and emotions, not rationality, and feelings and emotions are a very bad basis for public policy.

Now THAT should be in the constitution.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

Now THAT should be in the constitution.

It will be. Just as soon as I complete my sneaky, feminist take-over of the US.

[Elbe]

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Uh, yes. It is different. Wanting to legalize drugs for your own use is a situation in which your consent only is required. No one else is necessarily affected.

In consent laws, we recognize that children aren't adults and haven't acquired the ability to rationally give full and informed consent. These groups would have to advance arguments that, indeed, children are capable of such, and would have to provide solid, scientific research showing that they are.

These types are appealing to feelings and emotions, not rationality, and feelings and emotions are a very bad basis for public policy.

I'd always heard that the human brain, on average, doesn't fully mature until our early twenties (which, it was then argued, was why our drinking age is 21). We allow many decisions to be made by people without fully developed brains - drive, vote, smoke, consuensual sex (usually legal at 16 to 18, right?). It could be possible that younger children could be capable of making rational decisions, I don't know, but mightn't it be a bit rash to then argue that teenagers are capable of making those decisions if they too aren't fully mature?

I don't support what he wants to do, but I'm fine with him wanting to change the laws to do it (it isn't going to happen, so he can say whatever he wants). As long as he's not breaking any laws I don't care what he says.

[Kallah]

In consent laws, we recognize that children aren't adults and haven't acquired the ability to rationally give full and informed consent. These groups would have to advance arguments that, indeed, children are capable of such, and would have to provide solid, scientific research showing that they are.

According to the Canadian Department of Justice the general age of consent is 14 (with the exception of shooting porn, prostituting one’s self, sleeping with someone in authority such as your boss, etc - the age is 18 for those). So as sceevy as it sounds to us, as 65 year old and a 14 year old could have a perfectly legal relationship. I’m not talking about third world countries, or someone with a radically different culture - this is Canada. So yes, some places feel that younger teens are able to think things through and give consent.

These types are appealing to feelings and emotions, not rationality, and feelings and emotions are a very bad basis for public policy.

I agree with you 100%.

I don't support what he wants to do, but I'm fine with him wanting to change the laws to do it (it isn't going to happen, so he can say whatever he wants). As long as he's not breaking any laws I don't care what he says.

Yes, the odds of it happening are slim-to-none, but what if the law was changed? Would you feel the same way about him having a right to lobby? Your argument feels a lot like ‘I’m not worried, it won’t happen to me.’ If I'm totally off on that, it's my mistake for reading it wrong.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Kallah

According to the Canadian Department of Justice the general age of consent is 14 (with the exception of shooting porn, prostituting one’s self, sleeping with someone in authority such as your boss, etc - the age is 18 for those). So as sceevy as it sounds to us, as 65 year old and a 14 year old could have a perfectly legal relationship. I’m not talking about third world countries, or someone with a radically different culture - this is Canada. So yes, some places feel that younger teens are able to think things through and give consent.

I haven't got a cite for this (although I shall have another look in a minute) but I'm sure I've read somewhere that our age of consent used to be 13 and it was raised to 16 (sometime in the 19th century)

[BringTheNoise]

13 is the common law age of consent, and was indeed raised to 16 by statute.

[glisp42]

The age of consent varies from state to state here in the US. Kansas's age of consent is 14. There was a big flap a while ago about a 14 year old boy who got married to a 20 or 30 something year old woman.