LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Just dropped in to spread the joy- have you seen this? (laughing)

MlledeLaPlumeBleu

MlledeLaPlumeBleu

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Posts
779
Yes, it's been awhile since I reared my head from foraging in the kelp- but pray tell, what group of delightfully sardonic and incisive intellectuals would appreciate this site more than you dear, dear people?
perverted justice

This is even better than the troupe of schoolgirls who gave that sex offender an impromptu boot-party.

The underage personas they adapt to lure the pedos will seem familiar to many; Durtgirl comes to mind. I think MG could have a promising and victorious career as a deputized cyber-troller.

mlle
 
Nice to see you again, Mllede,

This is a very frustrating arena for parents, law enforcement and others who are concerned. This group has an interesting take on where to find the predators, and I suspect they are right. If you do go to the site, make sure you read their Mission Statement. They are trolling in 'innocent' regional chat rooms for older individuals that try to strike up friendships with the underage.

Our own little corner of the world has seen two murders of Jr. High School girls and a neighbor arrested for solicitation of a minor. The lack of adult supervision did figure in to all three cases. So some of their comments make sense to me.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that what they are doing will necessarily prevent the predators from hunting. The methods they describe makes me think that the predators will only go deeper into camouflage. At the same time, I think they are onto a basic truth - elimination of anonymity reduces the ability of the hunter to succeed.

I wish them well.
 
Last edited:
It's there, Maths. Turn your cookies or crackers on.

Perdita
 
&^)(*&&^&^$&%#!!

Originally posted by perdita It's there, Maths. Turn your cookies or crackers on.
Click to expand...
Dear Perdita,
Oh, thanks loads for the helpful advice. Still don't see it.
MG
 
Interesting though it is I have to say that they are a little misguided - they set themselves up for the common good but instead come across as another agent of the thought police. Yes it is immoral to have sex with a child who is not old enough to make such a decision but the website specifically condemns thoughts - they say it is wrong to want, wrong to desire. That is where a lot of people go wrong, they bring the mind and thoughts into moral questions. You cannot condemn somebody for their thoughts only their actions.
 
You tellin' me that having the desire to fuck a 14 year old girl in the ass is a good thing, Sancho?
 
raphy said:
You tellin' me that having the desire to fuck a 14 year old girl in the ass is a good thing, Sancho?
Click to expand...
Dear r,
That would be a mighty elderly sheep.
MG
 
Hmmmm

MathGirl said:
Dear r,
That would be a mighty elderly sheep.
MG
Click to expand...

Blodwyn's 15 love:D

Hello Blue lady how are you :rose:

I agree with a lot of the comments here, and disagree with some, it may scare a few odd 'would be' pervs away to be exposed and stung in this way, but as was said above, the real Mc Coy guys and gals will just adopt better cover.

We actually have a law against it over here now, any adult caught trying to chat up an underage kid online, go straight to jail.

Trouble is it's meant the law abiding majority have had to accept another bunch of snoopers and thought police who can read our e-mails and log into our PC from afar quite legally.

Much better to just march the pedo's out into the street and shoot the bastards dead as soon as they're caught, the world would run out of them eventually that way.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't really hold it against these guys to have fantasies, as long as they didn't acted on them by trying to seduce minors or buy porn with minors in it. Fantasies don't hurt kids, actions do.

But when I looked at a few of these links, it seemed like quite a few of these older men were trying to fulfill their fantasies, and that makes them criminals!
 
raphy said:
You tellin' me that having the desire to fuck a 14 year old girl in the ass is a good thing, Sancho?
Click to expand...

It did not appear to me that they had any plan to deal with the desire to fuck a 14 year old girl in the ass. :eek:

I believe their program is to stop the perverts who are trying to act upon their desire to fuck a 14 year old girl in the ass ... or a 14 year old boy, for that matter. :eek:

PS. "Dum Vivamus, Viviamus" . . . Mickey ain't so fucking bright, either! :rolleyes:
 
While I agree that this approach is not likely to permanently dissuade an obsessed or determined pedophile from treasure-hunting for baby cock-and-twaddle, I think it is a lovely bell-ringing and wake up call to vigilance; especially to those misguided men who briefly confuse fantasy and reality without really thinking about the consequences, with a false feeling of security in a forum as anonymous as a chatroom. These men need to be educated about the dangers of the internet too- it can lead one to behaviors one would never attempt in real life.

I have to take exception to Sancho's knee-jerk "police state" assertions; regardless of whether you intend to act, children deserve to play without being harassed. We wouldn't tolerate it on a playground, we shouldn't tolerate it in a kid's chatroom. Whether or not you actually plan to molest them, or fuck them in the ass, is kind of irrelevant- the underage are not to be used as a fantasy outlet for the kinks and whims of adults. That's victimization. It's predatory. You don't actually have to touch someone "in area their bathing suit covers" to violate them; "sexy_bob_1954" foisting his self-gratifying agenda on "princessponygirl90" is unacceptable.


mlle

P.S. Has anyone read the "rights of reply", wherein the busted respond? Or the one where they nabbed an ABC Producer en route to show what he thought was a 13 year old boy the joys of first-time anal with a paper bag full of condoms, beer and lube?
 
OK! Now for self-gratifying salutations!

Trova, mia vita.
:kiss:

Pops, mon Capitaine.
:rose:

MG, perhaps more haiku?

You have been victimized. I deeply regret all my actions, and would never have actually greeted anyone. That isn't really my picture. Well, it is my picture, but I thought Pops was 18. Well, what I mean is, I thought Perdita was role-playing an 11 year old! But I thought she was older. But I'm not like that- I don't just go around saying "hi" to people. Curse this anonymous bitch-godess, this "internet"- she made me do it! Ah, non credea! Ah, pieta.
 
My reaction was to this:

IT'S WRONG TO WANT TO FUCK LITTLE KIDS!
Click to expand...

Wrong to want? By that logic then its also wrong to want to kill somebody, just because you want to doesn't mean you will do it. It is wrong to steal so by their logic it is also wrong to want to steal something even if you have no intention of doing it. They targetted not only those who try to start contact with children but also even condemn people who through no fault of their own think certain thoughts. You can only control your actions not your thoughts, so by condemning people for their thoughts they lose any respect from me they ever would have had.

Wanting to fuck a 14 year is not a good thing, but it is not a bad thing. It is amoral. I may want a lot of things that are illegal and/or immoral but so long as I don't put these into practise . . .
 
MlledeLaPlumeBleu said:
Trova, mia vita. :kiss:

Ah, non credea! Ah, pieta.
Click to expand...
Ma couer, that was all I needed. :kiss:

Did you get my email re. the mooning director of "Tristan"? Wish I'd been there, though the production sounded off the charts.

Sent you a PM too.

sing to me soon, Trova :heart:
 
sanchopanza said:
They targetted not only those who try to start contact with children but also even condemn people who through no fault of their own think certain thoughts. You can only control your actions not your thoughts, so by condemning people for their thoughts they lose any respect from me they ever would have had.
Click to expand...

I think they mostly target those who not only 'want' but also go through the 'actions' in conversation. Now, that might be a bone of contention (I can talk to someone I believe to be 14 and talk about all the nasty sex things I want to do with them, but not actually do any of them). Is that wanting or thinking or does the fact that I'm discussing it with the person I'm trying to do it with, push this into other boundaries.

The people on their 'bust' page are all people that have actually given out phone numbers and in some cases addresses and/or have arrainged to try and meet these kids. Perhaps it's all talk and no action but a scary thought none-the-less.

And hell, you should see their follow-up message forum. They don't stop with posting the chat log on the site. Routine follow ups are made to the e-mail, phone and address contacts. They also perform cellphone traces on some (at $50 a pop but will provide a lot of info). I strolled through one in which they listed a persons name, address, soc. sec. # (with some numbers blocked out), work address and phone, the addresses and work places he had worked at for the last 5 years... There's some serious digging going on at that site.

They may force some to go deeper into camouflage but I would be a lot of guys are scared shitless and/or have major parts of their lives ruined.
 
My beef was primarily just with the fact that several times they explicitly said it was wrong to want or desire. Regardless of whether you talk to somebody who you believe to be 14 the point I was making was on their mission statement page they don't even want to allow people to think certain thoughts, they seem to want to banish certain thoughts as well. That is where they went collossally wrong. I wasn't arguing with who they target or how they do it, just the fact that they condemn thoughts - same principal as many so called race crimes that involve people expressing opinions that shouldn't be allowed.

Over here in merry old free England we had a case in the past few days where a priest claimed that homosexuals could be treated and converted back, shown the right way so to speak. And what happened next? Of course, legal action was considered, needless to say none was taken but the very idea that somebody should think that legal action should be taken for having an opinion or expressing one is beyond me.

So a priest thought he could convert homosexuals (maybe he was only referring to lesbians, and what he could do ), who fucking cares? So somebody wants to fuck someone underage, who fucking cares? Obviously there are some people out there who would like to outlaw certain thoughts, and this thought . . . is for you.
 
Last edited:
What is it Henry Wilt says?

"If I had acted upon every impulse I've ever had, by now I would have been guilty of raping children, sodomy, burglery, assault, and mass murder."
 
sanchopanza said:
... So somebody wants to fuck someone underage, who fucking cares?
Obviously there are some people out there who would like to outlaw certain thoughts, and this thought . . . is for you.
Click to expand...
Sanch, you have a way of expressing yourself as annoyingly and obnoxiously as that boy in your AV looks (yes, I know it's you). You might have stopped a couple posts above and save some embarrassment (that's an opinion only). You're new still but I can think of no one on the AH who can match Mlle in an argument.

I frankly don't care about the site's mission statement. Write to them if it offends you that much. I have no issues with what they do.

Re. your first question, any parent (including this mother).

Your last statement is superfluous.

Perdita
 
But is it really allright to give out those people's name and address and phone number? I mean, what if some vigilante gets it into his head that he should go on a clean-the-country-of-the-pedo's-spree, and murders a lot of people?

Without getting into a discussion if a pedo-wannabe deserves to be shot or not, is it allright to take law into your own hands and deal out whatever punishment you think is fair, personally?
What if someone decides I deserve to be shot for using Kazaa or Napster?

Leave crimefighting to the police, don't make a public fun of it. That kind of sick entertainment should have died out with the Circus Maximus.
 
I can see Sancho's point, and I think some of you are taking it the wrong way. Maybe this is a more understandable parallel:

How many of us married folks have honestly not had at least a passing sexual thought about a brother- or sister-in-law? (or cousin/aunt/uncle) How many of us have attempted to do something about these thoughts?

The action is immoral, not the thought.

Are the writers of incest, interacial (in some warped minds) exhibitionist/voyeur, loving wives, mind control and non-consent, on this very site, to be condemned for their immoral thoughts?

Speaking of which, that site is an open source for prurient interest.

Gauche
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top