Thread: Should pedophiles use lucid dreaming to live out their fantasies?

Originally Posted by Maeni

Yep, I'm still waiting for a reaction to posts: #101, #102, #105 and the rest of #114.

What do you want me to say, when you deny people who claim they were "cured" from homosexuality? What do you want me to say when you label any source that talk negatively about pedophiles as dubious? We are just going around in circles. Look here:

How do you imagine an average pedophile victimizes children? Do you think they daily kidnap a new kid? The vast majority of child molestation cases happen in families, and I think most families don't have 244 children.

The word victimize can be applied in several different ways. You don't have to rape a child in order to victimize him. Touching a small girl inappropriately to get sexual satisfaction out of it is also victimization. One doesn't have to "kidnap" someone in order for that person to be victimized. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to me that a pedophile can victimize over 200 children in his lifetime.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Pseudo-righteous ignorance is so self-perpetuating! Too many people condemn what they don't understand, jump on the bandwagon lynching niggers, Jews and fags and call it happy.

I don't condemn anyone who doesn't wish to harm a person or force them to do something against their will. Your statement doesn't apply to me.

Originally Posted by Jakob

I don't condemn anyone who doesn't wish to harm a person or force them to do something against their will. Your statement doesn't apply to me.

You seemingly concur with condemnation of sexual preference. I've read through your posts. Paedophilia is not a problem, I do not care what other doctors have said because there are plenty more stupid people in white coats that disagree. These opinions are not evidence.

Do you have any credibility yourself, at all? Or are you a guy with an opinion, saying what is right or wrong and that everyone should listen to you. The only thing I truly disagree with is non-acceptance, and you're ripe of it.

Originally Posted by tommo

No, I think they should fuck real children. *sigh*



It is completely normal to be attracted to someone who has hit puberty. Why do you think there are obvious signs of puberty? Because it shows they are ready to start having children, or fertilising eggs.

Just because a person is grown older, doesn't mean their taste in people has changed to older people too. It's perfectly normal.

And no government agency or psychologist who is receiving funding is ever going to admit that pedophilia is normal.

You see this all the time. As soon as someone is free of their constraints within a certain company or establishment, they come out with the truth.

Anyway, kind of off-topic a bit.

The point is, try to stop someone from dreaming about fucking children.
End of Discussion.

I can only partially agree with that. Yes girls in puberty are attractive. Young = attractive. However there's a limit.
A young woman is very attractive, however a young girl I don't find sexually attractive at all. It's when they near and pass the 16-age that they become attractive.
Before that I find them very uninterresting and don't see them through the eyes of lust. In fact I can't.

If you feel lust for a 10 year old girl and you're over 20; you, sir, have a rather unhealthy mind.

Originally Posted by Jakob

16-18 is different from 12-13. It might seem "only 3 years" older, but there is a difference.

Yes, that's right. 17 or 18 is something else, as long as she looks her age. Any girl that has a "child-like" appearance is unattractive to me. If a girl is 14 but looks much older than her age(around 20), I would find her attractive, except that for moral reasons I wouldn't take advantage of such a person.

Then we agree. That's what I said. It's normal to be attracted to people in puberty. 13 to 14 is hebephilia, and ~15 to ~19 is ephebophilia. I'm not sure about hebephilia, but I'm quite sure that ephebophilia is very normal.

Originally Posted by Jakob

What do you want me to say, when you deny people who claim they were "cured" from homosexuality? What do you want me to say when you label any source that talk negatively about pedophiles as dubious? We are just going around in circles. Look here:

Originally Posted by Maeni

But you're right, people who tried on their own volition using whatever means they could, I am very willing to believe that they could do that. But I would still not encourage or discourage it. Perhaps if I was asked, I would suggest it as an option to try.

And for the dubious sources part, I'm not just "labeling" them as dubious like a madman with a labeler, we have been giving your reasons (see post 101) why they're dubious. And to answer your questions, then I want you to either provide sources that are not dubious, just prove in some way or another that pedophiles should not use lucid dreams to live out their fantasies. You made the claim that they should not, and used flawed statistics and sources and just generally flawed arguments. So now you're either wrong or in search for better sources.

The word victimize can be applied in several different ways. You don't have to rape a child in order to victimize him. Touching a small girl inappropriately to get sexual satisfaction out of it is also victimization. One doesn't have to "kidnap" someone in order for that person to be victimized. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to me that a pedophile can victimize over 200 children in his lifetime.

It is reasonable that a pedophile could do that. But that the average pedophile does it is simply lunacy. Even including inappropriate touching, most child molesters will still only do it in the family. And again, families don't have 244 children.

Originally Posted by ClouD

And you are the absolute judge of all things paedophilia. There's differences in opinion. Why the fuck should you care where someone wants to put their genitals?

Differences in opinion when it comes to fucking a child? Boy, you are one special kind of idiot. Yes, there are differences of opinion: a pedophilic child molester says it's OK and that he should be allowed to do it.

I don't care where you put your genitals, as long as it isn't rape, or the person you are putting it into is not a CHILD. The issue isn't your genitals, but whether you are harming people. You can put it in your mother if you'd like, and I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

When you put it in a 10 year old girl, it is a different story. We are talking about sex with children for crying out loud. If someone put their genitals into your little girl's vagina, I'm pretty sure you'd be singing a different tune.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You seemingly concur with condemnation of sexual preference. I've read through your posts.

You didn't read anything:

Originally Posted by Jakob

I have nothing against homosexuals (for example) who have intercourse with consenting adults, as long as they do not try to force their lifestyle onto others. Pedophiles however, are not in the same category as homosexuals.

And by pedophiles I meant "active" ones, the ones that do have intercourse with children. How you can read that and say..

Paedophilia is not a problem

..is beyond me.

Having sex with pre-pubescent children, some even very young, some even going to contries such as Thailand to have sex with babies, and it is "not a problem."

lol, so you choose to answer everything but what I write, just so that you won't have to go and re-read your sources? Yup, says a lot about your credibility.

Not to mention only now you change pedophiles from anyone with sexual attraction towards children, to only those who have had sex with children and thus, cause harm. Oh well, at least we all know you are trying to save face at this point.

the next thing you know, the news is reporting "Lucid dreamers using their dreams to have sex with children"

giving us a bad name just like that damn jared loughner case

Hmm this really depends in my opinion.

In my opinion i believe that there are different types of pedophiles. 1. are the people that are out to hurt the kids. 2. are just naturally attracted to kids, like how people are attracted to red heads. 3. Have an uncontrollable urge for children. and so on.

Anyway if we were talking about the people have an uncontrollable urge for the children than i vote no. If they do stuff in the dream it might make the pedophile more likely to actually do the things in real life. I dont think that the video game thing applys because like jeff said a lucid dream is different than a video game. You have your emotions and thoughts in this world. Also everything seems 100% real.

If we are talking about the person that just has an attraction to kids than I say fine. Because these people are probably smart enough to resist the real world temptation. And in dreams they cant hurt anybody,.

Originally Posted by JamesLD

the next thing you know, the news is reporting "Lucid dreamers using their dreams to have sex with children"

giving us a bad name just like that damn jared loughner case

Well i think that most of the people who use lucid dreaming to have sex with children wont be telling many people about it.

Originally Posted by dakotahnok

Well i think that most of the people who use lucid dreaming to have sex with children wont be telling many people about it.

Yea too true. I mean, if you had sex with a kid in your dream, would you go telling people about it? I think not.

I don't think paedophilles should be aloud to "live" at all.

Originally Posted by Morte

I don't think pedophiles should be allowed to "live" at all.

Originally Posted by NightSpy2

Yea too true. I mean, if you had sex with a kid in your dream, would you go telling people about it? I think not.

no but once that person finally snaps and murders someone or sexually abuses a child and gets caught, then the police find his dream journal and read that hes been having sex with children in lucid dreams, the media would have a hay day with that

this is a totally random and unlikely scenario, im just saying

Originally Posted by JussiKala

Check my earlier post. It does not matter if it increases the temptation to do something IRL. The choice of doing that or not IRL is still his. He has the right to do it in lucid dreams, regardless of whether it increases the temptation or not. It's his CHOICE to do that. That choice should be his right, regardless of if it increases the temptation or not. If it increases the temptation or not, it's still his choice to do it IRL if he decides to do it, and not yours. It is not our place to try and prevent them from dreaming. From IRL assault, yes.

Should pedophiles use lucid dreaming to live out their fantasies?
This is the question being asked

It does matter if it increases the chance of doing something in real life. If a pedophile sees lucid dreaming as a suppressant to his not accepted actions, he/she will most likely try it. If it increased the temptations, even in a % of the people, we would be seeing more assaults on children and therefor be dealing with it. Pedophiles aren't usually thinking "How can I find a way to stop this from happening it's wrong" They probably are thinking closer on the lines of "Where can I find my next fix" Letting them live out their fantasies would be crazy since they are crazy and I don't wanna hear anything about normalcy they are CRAZY it's a mental disorder.

Lucid dreams are not real, yet we remember what we do in them. Is a pedophile benefiting from FEELING the sensations of having sex with a kid in his dream, and then waking up and still remembering it? The pedophile's therapists would shit a brick right now if we asked his patient to do the one thing they have been slowly steering clear of, even in a dream...

Also new excuse for Lucid dreaming Pedophiles when they get caught:

I did a reality check, I thought I was dreaming I would have never done it in reallll life.

Of course everything everyone says in this thread is theory since there are no studies

Originally Posted by Reclypso

It does matter if it increases the chance of doing something in real life. If a pedophile sees lucid dreaming as a suppressant to his not accepted actions, he/she will most likely try it. If it increased the temptations, even in a % of the people, we would be seeing more assaults on children and therefor be dealing with it. Pedophiles aren't usually thinking "How can I find a way to stop this from happening it's wrong" They probably are thinking closer on the lines of "Where can I find my next fix" Letting them live out their fantasies would be crazy since they are crazy and I don't wanna hear anything about normalcy they are CRAZY it's a mental disorder.

This just makes so many bad assumptions. First, that it will increase temptation (or indeed, change it at all), second, that increased temptation will invariably lead to an increased probability of a pedophile molesting a child, third, that it is an addicting behavior that requires a "fix", fourth, that pedophiles are crazy. Furthermore, you refuse to listen to anyone who says contrary, so not only is it a false assumption, it is one you have convinced yourself is true, and therefore, cannot change your mind.

Lucid dreams are not real, yet we remember what we do in them. Is a pedophile benefiting from FEELING the sensations of having sex with a kid in his dream, and then waking up and still remembering it? The pedophile's therapists would shit a brick right now if we asked his patient to do the one thing they have been slowly steering clear of, even in a dream...

>Implying pedos all have therapists/are actively seeking treatment
How is it different from daydreaming? Whoop dee fucking doo, it's a feeling. That doesn't skew their perception of reality and make them throw caution to the wind.

I did a reality check, I thought I was dreaming I would have never done it in reallll life.

Yeah, because I'm sure that will stand up in a court of law.

Of course everything everyone says in this thread is theory since there are no studies

Not theory, hypothesis. If you want to go by the scientific method, and we have every reason to, you cannot assume that dreaming of something will make a person more likely to do it. That's a positive claim, and the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the claimer. Until it is proven, we've no reason whatsoever to think it's true. Indeed, exactly the inverse might be equally likely. Maybe dreaming of it offers an out that is otherwise not available in reality.

Originally Posted by Reclypso

Should pedophiles use lucid dreaming to live out their fantasies?
This is the question being asked

It does matter if it increases the chance of doing something in real life. If a pedophile sees lucid dreaming as a suppressant to his not accepted actions, he/she will most likely try it. If it increased the temptations, even in a % of the people, we would be seeing more assaults on children and therefor be dealing with it.

Yes, we do have to deal with assaults on children, and we do that. We do that by discouraging the act of assaulting children, not by discouraging lucid dreaming.
There is probably a reason out there why some people assault children, and we should look for solutions to that, and deal with the problem simultaneously. But we should not discourage acts that may or may not lead some people to do the act that is the actual problem.

Pedophiles aren't usually thinking "How can I find a way to stop this from happening it's wrong" They probably are thinking closer on the lines of "Where can I find my next fix"

Well that was just slightly insulting.
You have no idea what pedophiles are "usually thinking". Hell, I don't even know what pedophiles are usually thinking, and for crying out loud, I AM one.

Letting them live out their fantasies would be crazy since they are crazy and I don't wanna hear anything about normalcy they are CRAZY it's a mental disorder.

Uh, are you saying that we should not let crazy people fantasize? And again, homosexuality was also a mental disorder not many years ago.

Lucid dreams are not real, yet we remember what we do in them. Is a pedophile benefiting from FEELING the sensations of having sex with a kid in his dream, and then waking up and still remembering it? The pedophile's therapists would shit a brick right now if we asked his patient to do the one thing they have been slowly steering clear of, even in a dream...

Bolded part; I think so. Even if not, I don't see the harm. The rest;
You are assuming that therapists work in the same way. I'll just tell you that I have talked/worked with a total of 6 therapists (psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors), and none of them say the same things.

Spoiler for Personal experiences:

2 of them thought that boycotting thoughts about children would limit my attraction to children; they would shit bricks if I did it in a lucid dream.
2 of them seemed convinced that my pedophilia was just a trait that I had, and that there was nothing to do about that, and would probably be happy if I told them that lucid dreaming was being used as an outlet.
The other two seemed convinced that I was going through a phase, had OCD (no idea why), or simply had a weird obsession with getting involved in obscure and taboo subjects. I am convinced that anything I told these two would promt them to prescribe me pills, because that's what they did after a short interview.

In short, the effect that it would have on some therapists is irrelevant.

Also new excuse for Lucid dreaming Pedophiles when they get caught:
I did a reality check, I thought I was dreaming I would have never done it in reallll life.

Somehow I don't think that's gonna work

Originally Posted by Jakob

And by pedophiles I meant "active" ones, the ones that do have intercourse with children. How you can read that and say..

When talking about "active pedophiles", you should really use the word "child molesters", as it is way more direct. Active pedophiles imply that they are fit. You can say "pedophillic child molesters" if you really want to enhance that part, but "active pedophiles" is a bullshit term.

Now, I find it a bit odd that you still haven't answered to some large amounts of arguments in this thread.
You came back and said 1. it was useless because we deny first hand stories
And 2. We label all your sources as dubious.

Now I have admitted that maybe it is possible to cure after all, so that's your first point off the list. And for the second, the posts that you have ignored are mostly posts that explain exactly why the sources are dubious.
That is how argumentation works, I believe. If you want to come back at us, you'd have to figure out a counter argument, either by showing us why your sources are not dubious, or by finding new ones that are not dubious, or by using reason instead of "experts".
If you cannot do that, then you've lost the argument.

And that's quite fair. What I think is rude is that you continue to argue against small sniplets of quotes, while ignoring all the posts that you no longer can argue against.
If you're out of the battle, you're out of the battle.

You are right that we were going around in circles. You provided sources, we pointed out the flaws in them, you provided similar sources. It's up to you to figure out what to say after that, so don't ask me what I want you to say.
I guess if you still want to ask for my opinion, a simple "Whoop, seems I was wrong." would suffice.

Of course, I'm not just assuming that you're out of the battle. But until you answer the posts that you have ignored, the discussion is sort of on hold. Maybe you want a few days, weeks or months to gather new, non-dubious information? Maybe you got it all ready right now? I just personally don't think we can keep going before those points have been answered.

vv

Wtf is with this shitty thread being full of 6 pages of nonsense? OP asked if it was ok to dream about sexual intercourse with a minor. Fucking dream. I've read a bunch of dream journals on this site where people have beat, maimed, and even killed dream characters and no one has a problem with it. Are those people any more likely to commit mass homicide in real life just because they dreamt it? No? Then why do you think it's any different when it comes to dreaming about sex?

Also,

Originally Posted by ClouD

niggers

Tee hee, you said the n-word. :x

Either way, you can't stop someone from doing what they want in a lucid dream.

SO THIS THREAD IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO WHACK OTHER PEOPLE WITH YOUR HUGE E-PENIS

Hello Maeni,

I will go point by point, so please correct me specifically where I am going wrong.

1.) Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children.
2.) Pedophiles have a strong desire to have sex, just like heterosexuals or homosexuals.
3.) Pedophiles can relieve themselves sexually either by masturbating, or victimizing a child.
4.) There is no other way they can relieve themselves sexually, since they are not attracted to adults.
5.) Some pedophiles can control themselves, and they would not victimize a child.
6.) Other pedophiles cannot control themselves, and they would victimize children, or have done so already.
7.) There are pedophiles that are in-between. They are unstable, try to restrain themselves, but whether they would victimize a child or not, is an open question.

Again, please correct me where I am going wrong above. Now here's my position in detail:

When I say that I am against someone using lucid dreaming to have sex with children, I am specifically talking those under point #7. "Why do you care?" you ask? I care, because it might increase the desire to do it in real life. If it does not, then I have no problem. If you claim it is impossible for it to increase the desire, then this is a dishonest answer. Furthermore, and this is important, I said lucid dreaming should first be used to attempt to cure pedophilia. If it really does not work, then again, I have nothing against pedophilic fantasies in dreams, as long as those acts remain only in the dream world.

Mario92 on the other hand claims that it is impossible to cure pedophilia, and calls everyone who says he's been cured a liar. This is pure bullshit. He can't go into someone else's mind and heart to see what happened and what didn't happened.

Mario92's position also seems to be the same as your position: It is impossible for lucid dreams to increase the desire of pedophiles to have sex with children in reality. Is this your position? Either way, I strongly disagree with that position. Some pedophiles might be able to use it as a positive thing, an outlet, while others will only be more tempted to try it in reality. Example:

Pedophile A: "Wow this really feels good in a lucid dream, I don't need to do it in reality!"

Pedophile B: "Wow this really feels good in a lucid dream, I can't imagine how good it must feel like in reality!"

Of course there can also be the following reaction:

Pedophile C: "This doesn't feel good at all. Fuck dreams, I wanna do it in reality."

Anyhow, I don't have a problem with A, only with B and C, and that is my position. To those who claim that scenario B is impossible, I think this is really dishonest and unrealistic.

Now I need to kindly remind you that I do have a life, and do not have the opportunity to reply to every sentence that has been posted within a day or two. Tell me Maeni exactly what you want me to respond to.

Jakob

Originally Posted by Jakob

When I say that I am against someone using lucid dreaming to have sex with children, I am specifically talking those under point #7. "Why do you care?" you ask? I care, because it might increase the desire to do it in real life. If it does not, then I have no problem. If you claim it is impossible for it to increase the desire, then this is a dishonest answer. Furthermore, and this is important, I said lucid dreaming should first be used to attempt to cure pedophilia. If it really does not work, then again, I have nothing against pedophilic fantasies in dreams, as long as those acts remain only in the dream world.

Once more, the burden of proof here is entirely on your shoulders. We've no reason to think it significantly increases the probability of it happening in real life in a significant number of people. Even so, why does it matter? Like Maeni(?) said, what counts is preventing the action itself, not some obscure maybe-minor-contributor to it. But go ahead, keep backpedaling.

Mario92 on the other hand claims that it is impossible to cure pedophilia, and calls everyone who says he's been cured a liar. This is pure bullshit. He can't go into someone else's mind and heart to see what happened and what didn't happened.

Hmm, where did I say this? And why would I go to their heart? All it does is pump blood around. Not a fun place to be.

Mario92's position also seems to be the same as your position: It is impossible for lucid dreams to increase the desire of pedophiles to have sex with children in reality. Is this your position? Either way, I strongly disagree with that position. Some pedophiles might be able to use it as a positive thing, an outlet, while others will only be more tempted to try it in reality. Example:

Burden of proof. We've no reason to think it actually increases desire until you submit valid evidence that it does. Furthermore, that evidence must be statistically significant, e.g. showing an increase that is outside any margin of error. So, a .3% increase would not be significant, but a 20% increase would be. To fully support your case, you must then show that this increase in desire to molest a child actually manifests itself in reality more frequently (again, with statistical significance). Only then can you say that one select group of people is somewhat prone to lucid dreaming increasing the odds of child molestation. Further, you're still attacking a contributor and not preventing the harmful act itself.

Anyhow, I don't have a problem with A, only with B and C, and that is my position. To those who claim that scenario B is impossible, I think this is really dishonest and unrealistic.

It's a long way to jump from "dreams are a bit of a disappointment" to "let's go molest children today." It requires a hell of a lot more than failed dreams to make that jump. Even then, are these people not entitled to dream as they see fit?

Now I need to kindly remind you that I do have a life, and do not have the opportunity to reply to every sentence that has been posted within a day or two. Tell me Maeni exactly what you want me to respond to.

Oh, that's convenient.

Jakob

Yes, we know who you are. Your name is right there next to your post for convenience.

~Mario92 the Galactic Space Lord~

Originally Posted by Mario92

Once more, the burden of proof here is entirely on your shoulders. We've no reason to think it significantly increases the probability of it happening in real life in a significant number of people. Even so, why does it matter? Like Maeni(?) said, what counts is preventing the action itself, not some obscure maybe-minor-contributor to it. But go ahead, keep backpedaling.

What are you rambling about? I never said I could prove that lucid dreaming must increase the desire. I said that it can happen with unstable individuals, and that if I could choose, I would choose that they not dream about fucking kids.

Hmm, where did I say this? And why would I go to their heart? All it does is pump blood around. Not a fun place to be.

I was sure you implied it. Maybe it was Maeni then, but either way he admitted it would be dishonest to call those people liars. When I said heart, I didn't mean literally of course. I meant his soul, but perhaps being a pedophile you don't believe in a soul.

Burden of proof. We've no reason to think it actually increases desire until you submit valid evidence that it does. Furthermore, that evidence must be statistically significant, e.g. showing an increase that is outside any margin of error. So, a .3% increase would not be significant, but a 20% increase would be. To fully support your case, you must then show that this increase in desire to molest a child actually manifests itself in reality more frequently (again, with statistical significance). Only then can you say that one select group of people is somewhat prone to lucid dreaming increasing the odds of child molestation. Further, you're still attacking a contributor and not preventing the harmful act itself.

We don't have access to such data. Your post is irrelevant since I never claimed it must increase desire, that's why I laid out these three scenarios above, which you completely ignored.

So it may increase desire and lead to the actual act with some people, and in others it won't have that kind of negative effect. How is this a false statement?

It's a long way to jump from "dreams are a bit of a disappointment" to "let's go molest children today." It requires a hell of a lot more than failed dreams to make that jump. Even then, are these people not entitled to dream as they see fit?

Nice sidestep.

1.) You ignored scenario B, and jumped right onto C. Scenario B is the most important scenario, and I highlighted it red. How can you say B is not likely? Have you never had a dream about something and thought "i bet this would really feel awesome in reality?" Flying, for instance? How is sex with children in this case any different for a pedophile, if not even more tempting than all other things he dreams about? The pedophile wants to have sex badly. Some pedophiles will react like example A, and others like example B. If all pedophiles will react like example A, then go ahead, I encourage those pedophiles to take a sleeping pill and dream all day and all night about sex with kids. I do not give a shit.

2.) Again you make a straw man and keep attacking it. This is not a question of who is entitled to dream. You can dream about fucking your mother - I do not care about your dreams, as long as your dream activity does not influence your waking life actions which lead to harming other human beings. How likely is it to increase this activity in waking life? We don't know, because we don't have access to such data. We can only try to use our reasoning and form our individual opinions about it. Your opinion is that it is unlikely, my opinion is that it is likely. It is not the actual dream pedophilic activity I have a problem with, but one possible outcome resulting from this activity. Get it? Get it?

Didn't think so.

Oh, that's convenient.

There goes your reasoning again. "I couldn't cure my pedophilia, so no one can." - "I don't have a life, so Jakob doesn't have one either." It is 02:32 AM right now here in Germany. I had a busy day, and then I get to be 3 or 4 hours in the early morning on the computer. Posting on Dreamviews isn't my only computer activity, so sorry if I don't get to reply to each sentence from Maeni, Mario92, and other pedophiles and pedophilic sympathizers.

Yes, we know who you are. Your name is right there next to your post for convenience.

It's a habit I have, to write Jakob at the end of some of my posts. Why does that bother you? You can write "Mario92 the Pedophile" and I wouldn't comment about it. At least you should be honest like Maeni and admit you actually are one.

I like how you keep evading everything I say, and how you keep making big assumptions about mario and how you keep changing your initial position so that it will make you look like the victim here.