User talk:Christopher

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Masturbation

you must masturbate a lot since you don't fuck children.--Transmitfailure 14:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) - (Yes, I do.)--Christopher

[edit] Zygote fantasies

if you were this way since you were two did you fantasize about foetuses? zygotes? ova? --kh/ what 15:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)- (No, I fantasized about my 4 year old cousin)--Christopher


Link title==Rape legaleze== The sine qua non of rape is lack of consent, not force. Evidence of force was an archaic means to prove a lack of consent; if a woman (by statute, only women could be raped) did not fight back, that was held to be evidence of consent. No jurisdiction still follows this rule, preferring instead to focus on actual evidence of consent. In any case, none of this helps you in your quest to diddle kiddies because children are legally incapable of providing meaningful consent to anything (not just sex), so all kiddie diddling is rape.--hardvice (talk) 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Lack of consent goes to a threat of force, threat of violence to another person, or actual physical force. Read the law books, every one I have read [and I am studying law in my spare time] says that without a woman saying no, it isn't rape, unless she does something else that tells you that she doesn't want the sexual encounter [i.e. kick you, hit you, et. al.])--Christopher
    • Dude, I've read the law books. I'm a lawyer. Lack of consent is what matters; force was used to prove lack of consent. Some jurisdictions make forcible rape a more serious offense, but in all jurisdictions, lack of consent = rape, whether there is force or not. If your law books say otherwise, I'd suggest getting new ones: the last "it's only rape if she resists" laws started disappearing in the 1970s.--hardvice (talk) 19:09, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • You didn't mean et al., twitburger. You meant to use etc., unless Kick You and Hit You are people. Gerbilsage 05:23, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Duh. That's just so in your culture, to beat the beaten, isn't it? Obviously Christopher is a freak who just has to live with himself. Isn't that a punishment hard enough? As long as he can restrain himself on a civilized level of co-existence, so should we, whom no such burden has been set. Or something. Sigmundur 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, Hardvice. Let's play hardball. Under your notion of the world children are too young and stupid to decide for themselves about anything. Okay, then let's round up all the stupid ADULTS in the world and take away their rights to decide what they want to do with their own bodies. Women who get pregnant out of wedlock or when they barely have enough money to support themselves, round them up and sterilize them. The mentally impared, round them up and sterilize them so that their 'idiotic' babies won't stink up your world.

Oh, excuse me, we now know (after actually sterilizing mentally impared people) that their babies have just as much chance of being normal as anyone else's children. It is not people like me, who respect and honor children and know that they are just as mature as anyone else that live in this world, that are the evil ones here. It is people like you who insist on taking away the rights of people (and people includes children) to their own bodies, and the right to do what they want with those bodies and minds when it harms no one else except themselves (and usually doesn't mess up them), that mess up the world.

I can refer you to the the Inqusition, the killings of Christians in the Sudan, the Salem Witch Trials and many other instances in history where the people who were supposedly PROTECTING the innocent, were much more evil than the people who they were fighting against.

Sure, some child rapists (note: I used the word child rapist because someone who has consensual sex with a child is NOT a child rapist) don't respect the rights of children to say "No" and stop the sexual encounter there or before it even starts. However, do not DARE to compare them to me or true pedophiles. True pedophiles would NEVER force a child or threaten a child into a sexual act. They would wait until the child asks them to do something and then ONLY DO WHAT THE CHILD ASKED.

And, on another point, the only large study done in this century, by the Danish, on sexually abused children, found out a shocking thing. Children who were 'sexually abused' were just as likely to grow up normal as children who WEREN'T sexually abused, even if there was no police involvement at any time in their lives, and if the person who sexually abused them never went to jail. It was only when the police got involved that all of a sudden, we saw that children came out of the experiences with mental diseases or illnesses, usually in large part to the interrogation techniques that the police used.

IE. Threatening to put the CHILD in jail for what the ADULT did to them, telling them that if they don't testify against the person who diddled them they will be taken away from their parents, or actually being physically beaten or terrified senseless because they refused to tell the police who molested them.--Christopher

  • iamusingtheinternets lol this shud go in creepypasta.
  • I like line breaks, do you? --kh/ what 18:36, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do, unfortunately, I can't figure out how to use them in this system of posting.) --

User:Christopher

  • tl;dr--Transmitfailure 18:08, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm.
    1. Lol, what?
    2. TL;DR
    3. It's not my "notion of the world"; it's the way the law has worked since the earliest days of English common law. Children are legally incapable of providing meaningful consent to anything, whether it be contracts or sex. That's the whole purpose of recognising of a parent's guardianship. I'm all in favour of people recognising children's civil and human rights (specifically, I think it's crap that they can be involuntarily incarcerated or committed by their parents). But what you're talking about isn't recognising their rights—it's doing away with the definition of a minor. A minor is a person under the age of majority who has no legal capacity to consent. Whether you agree or not, the stated purpose of recognising minors is to protect them from people taking advantage of their inexperience and innocence, whether it be by contract or by pick-up line. Are some minors mature enough to make such decisions on their own? Probably, but the law errs on the side of caution by making all minors subject to coveture by their guardians. And that's my point: regardless of what Danish studies say, or what you know in your sick pervert heart when you look in a little girl's eyes, children cannot by law consent to sex with an adult, so fucking them is rape even if they beg for it. That makes anyone who has sex with a child a child rapist. Don't like that? Change the law. But don't pretend that's not the way it is.--hardvice (talk) 19:09, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • This is the best damn reply I've seen to Christopher yet. -- Fire trucks

That's exactly what I am working on doing. BTW, I know that it is against the law to diddle children, but 20 years ago it was also against the law to have a homosexual relationship, and now it is pretty much accepted except by the religious fringe.

My friends, family, employers and the people I work with all know that I have this predilection, and are perfectly okay with it, as long as I do not try to touch their children sexually without their children's permission. They even let me babysit their children because they trust me not to do anything to them. Sure, some of them were leery about letting me around their kids at first when they found out what I was, but after they saw that I was more interested in just spending time with their children than diddling them, they began to trust me more and I really hope that I do not do anything to betray that trust.

BTW, if I ever did rape (forcibly) a child, I would hope that someone would lock me away for the rest of my life or kill me and put me out of my misery, because I just couldn't live with the guilt from doing that to a child.

I am now trying to convince others that pedophiles doesn't equal child rapists. Most people just don't want to think nowadays and say "Well, if he diddles a kid, he must have threatened the kid into it" even if the child themself tells them that there was no force and no threats.

They just have this weird notion that "naked body = bad" and "sex of any form = bad". It's worse among religous families who have been raised to think that their bodies are sinful. If their body is sinful, and God modeled us after himself, then you are calling his body sinful and I don't think he would be too happy with that.--Christopher

  • Any parent who would allow a self confessed pedophile to spend any time with their child is guilty of reckless endangerment. Also, your 'crusade' smacks of depraved self interest. paigegirl
    • So my crusade as you call it smacks of depraved self-interest. Okay, then the Christian crusade of the 1600's was in depraved self-interest, the crusade of the homosexuals today smacks of depraved self interest and any crusade at all smacks of depraved self interest. Plus, a parent is NOT guilty of reckless endangerment if they allow a pedophile near their child. They have the right to decide who can go around their child or not, and it is massively elitest of you to think that you can decide better than them who should be around their children or not. --User:Christopher
      • What you're after has nothing to do with Christianity and do not compare your criminal inclinations to what the gay folk are trying to achieve. The operative word here is consensual, a grown person may get a child to have sex with them by coercing them but consent plays no part. Also the laws of society, the common laws of decency, hardly amount to elitism fuckwit. Normal people do not allow their children to keep company with persons likely to abuse or maltreat them. paigegirl
        • Then you shouldn't allow children to be around their own parents, considering that 85% of all child murders in this country are done by family or friends of the family. And you can coerce anyone into doing anything if you threaten them, and even under my set of rules, if you threaten someone, THERE IS NO CONSENT, whether you are a child or adult. Children are able to give consent, it's just that people like you don't want to give them that right because you are afraid "Well, if I give them the right to do anything they want that doesn't hurt another person or damage property, they won't listen to me and allow me to beat my beliefs into them, so I have to take their rights away in order to do that." Christopher
          • You know what dude, you're an idiot. A three-year-old doesn't understand about his or her body, privacy, or sexuality, so of course they're going to "give consent" if an adult like you were to ask him if you can touch him inappropriately. Little kids don't understand that the world isn't a safe place, and assholes like you will try to take advantage of them, and they need their moms and dads around to make sure they know what to do. The beliefs that are "beat" into them are to protect them, for the most part, so that they don't fall for your sick attempts at "seduction", not necessarily to take their "rights" away from them.--Azathar 02:45, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
            • "Well, if I give them the right to do anything they want that doesn't hurt another person or damage property, they won't listen to me and allow me to beat my beliefs into them, so I have to take their rights away in order to do that." Christopher I doubt anyone is concerned about not being able to "Beat" their beliefs into their children, considering most things clidren learn from their parents is gained not through force, but rather by adaptation and observation of their enviroment. I would be more concerned with you trying to beat something else into my children. You cant possibly compare forbidding a child to do something, teaching them something, with saying that it is for their own well being or learning when it's no more than a pathetic excuse for you to gain pleasure. And once again, you cant possible compare the homosexuality campaign with this Childlove movement of yours.
          • iamusingtheinternets A lot of child lovers like yourself have a romanticized idea of a childs mind, ie more pure, more kind, better than a regular persons mind. It gets to a point of worship or even in many pedophiles cases sexualized worship. The fact remains simple, decades of psychological research indicates that sex with a child is exploitation.

            Regardless of whether or not the child wanted it. It is highly unlikely a child from a normal home, raised under normal circumstances aged 1-11 is going to desire sex or going to want to explore sex. Giving examples from rome or past boy loving societies is not necessarily redeeming as sex with boys was a politically motivated gesture in ancient rome and greece.



Sex with boys was also the result of a very hedonistic and self righteous society. Many glorify the "open sexuality" of ancient romans and greeks but in reality it was a open glorification of male dominance. The greeks and romans didnt even know the woman could orgasm. They didn't care. Chances of the romans caring about the feelings the boys had during sex are very low. As for psychological damage, both most child molesters and the victims of child molestation suffer from issues of control, although the molested may not molest another, they will suffer issues of control throughout their life.

Child molesters on the other hand are usually emasculated on a daily basis. They need something to dominate, whether or not they clam to have loved based sex, it more than likely is about dominance, they may not punch the living hell out of the kid or tie them up but the lifestyle of emasculation that the pedophile has had will cause such a pedophile to reach out for control. The typical profile for a child molester is a middle aged suburbanite man. These people are constantly emasculated, they have been working their entire life usually at the same point in a ladder based business system, they wont attain anything greater, and they have no ability to gain power, they never have in their life and they never will.

Theres a reason the news states the child molester was exploiting the child, or molesting them, theres a reason they're called child molesters rather than child rapists. Rape is the forced act. Molestation is coercion and exploitation. If a woman was violently raped by her father and as a result feels no one loves her for her talents and soul and feels the only way she can validate her existance is through sex(which is fairly common). When she feels the only thing she has going for her is sex and you have sex with her knowing this, you're exploiting someone. And in another less extreme case a girl who grows up not recieving any compliments or encouragement from her family, and only recieves sexual compliments from junior high boys will reach out sexually for validation. And as funny as it is to make fun of sluts this is the most common reason they are the way they are and it is always pitiable.

Exploitation is a very tricky subject. As it simply can't be figured out by whether or not someone simply agreed to something or not. You have to look at backgrounds, what caused this person to say yes or ask for this. You can't just say "we'll the kid told me to fuck them, i guess i'll do it," that is just irresponsible and wrong. If a kid comes from a fucked up family chances are that kid is going to do fucked up things. Hell some kids with fucked up enough lives strangle kittens to death, look at the example of phred phelps' kids.

Many children who get sexually active at age 7-12 do not have normal home lives at all. Its a simple fact of psychology. Theres a reason the vast majority of psychologists find pedophilia wrong. Using the example of some adults have the same problem with not knowing what is right for them is purposely ignoring several of the important factors that these adults share with children. These adults and these children do not have normal lives, they were not raised under normal conditions and in the case of the adults did not make it past the childhood and early adulthood phases in tact. therefore having sex with these adult individuals or these child individuals is exploitation.



Exploitation may not be as pysically violent as rape but exploitation shares a common thing with violent rape, it will either fuck up someones life for years to come or make sure someone stays on a fucked up life path until they die.

[edit] HOLY FUCK WHEN DID THIS GUY SHOW UP?

SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC) Dude, are you furry too? SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) Christopher

  • Yes, I am. The only sexual things that I have found disgusting are necrophilia and beastiality. Furry, I do not see as beastiality, because the characters are just as evolved as us and just as able to articulate their views, through language and action.--User:Christopher
    • swell, then, what kind of animal do you like to dress up as? SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • and what kinds of animals do you want to fuck? Cirrus 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

You need to stop blanking out things you don't agree with, both in this article and in not4chan. The whole purpose of this wiki is lulz and drama. This also means we don't care what happens at not4chan. If you can't get behind that, then leave.--hardvice (talk) 00:04, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when they use hurtful and ignorant language or just doing something for "the lulz" or "drama", I will take it off the discussion page and I will not apologize for that!--Christopher
    • dude, we just put it back, over and over, it's a wiki. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • And I'll keep taking it off over and over. It's a matter of who is more stubborn, you or more, and you have no chance of being more stubborn than me. Christopher
        • Which is all well and good, except 1) there are more of us and 2) we're getting laughs out of it.--hardvice (talk) 07:02, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Like it or not, this wiki is for lulz. Now, when somebody posts an actual of-age female on your pedo board, I'm assuming you delete it because it's off topic, amiright? Yeah, so your unfunny edits are the same thing: blanking shit is not welcome here, and will be reverted.--hardvice (talk) 21:31, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
She told me she was 18, I swear!
She told me she was 18, I swear!

[edit] There is no way you can justify your pedophilia.

"However, I have never acted on my impulses towards female children or any child in general, mainly because I believe that the child should make the first move in a sexual situation." Seriously, what the fuck? --Heidi

  • I can hear his defense now: "she was asking for it! She crawled up to me, wearing that tight onesie, looking all slutty ... I mean, yeah, she can only say "DA-DA" and "PUPPY" so far, but that look in her eyes told me all I needed to know: she wanted me bad."--hardvice (talk) 00:23, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyone here is a fucking moron

YHBT. All of you.--User:Weev 00:21, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • LOL.--hardvice (talk) 00:23, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I am Christopher and I am very offended by your accusation. --Heidi
    • I am Christopher, and so's my wife.--hardvice (talk) 00:34, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm Spartacus!!!--User:Weev 06:05, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • NO, I'M SPARTICUS! Besides, I have a badge to prove it--King Pudding 05:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Markup

Christopher, my boy, if you don't learn how to make line breaks and sign your comments I will kill you in the face. It's not hard. Just look at how everybody else has done it while you're editing.--hardvice (talk) 21:31, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, signatures can't be figured out by looking at the markup themselves. THOUGH, YOU'D FIGURE THAT THE IMAGE OF THE SIGNATURE ABOVE THE TEXTBOX WOULD BE SELF-EXPLANATORY. w/e lulz. --User:Weev 01:19, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OMG GV pops in to say HALLO

HA HA. I have this premonition that someone is going to ban you. IT WILL BE FUNNY AND I WILL LAUGH --girlvinyl 04:33, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I've been dying to do it but he keeps coming back with hilarious defenses. --kh/ what 05:45, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to ban him for five minutes for misspelling "bestiality".--hardvice (talk) 05:51, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion of account

I don't think it can be done. You've made a large number of edits, and the nature of a wiki is that there will always be a record of them. Considering that other people have built on the contributions you've made, there's no way all your contributions can be removed, which would be a necessary part of removing your records. Also, you've had lengthy conversations with a number of people who would not want that conversation removed. What you have written cannot be unwritten - the fact is that you wrote it, and that will not change, regardless of how embarrassed you are of your confessed perversion and criminal tendency. --Banbot talk to Banbot 05:53, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • we could ban him though. --kh/ what 06:21, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • According to my lawyer, removal of such evidence would make us accomplices. --Lucky Pierre 06:25, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • banning allows less drama --insanet

[edit] A Brief & Hopefully Helpful Translation of Christopher's Latest Edit

HOW COME EVERY TIME I SAY I WANT TO FUCK KIDS PEOPLE TREAT ME LIKE I'M SOME KIND OF PERVERT?
SCREW YOU GUYS; I'M GOING HOME.

--hardvice (talk) 06:57, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • This was the lollest wikiedit drama EVER. --Weev 10:06, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • This guy is a lol-cow for real. --Lucky Pierre 21:06, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • lol --Pxx 06:00, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • Lol, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Although if the doorknob was in the right place you'd probably get a hard-on from that anyways. A SPIDER EXPERT 16:47, 28 January 2008 (CST)
          • If that's not lulz then I don't even know what lulz is! --User:Furfagsmustdie 16:05, March 27 2008 (MDT)

[edit] Death threats

Christopher said: I will state again, DELETE THIS PAGE. If it is not deleted by the time I check next, I will contact federal authorities because I have been getting death threats from the people on this wiki.

  • Interesting. How exactly are these people getting ahold of you to make these death threats? It's not like it contains an address. Or even an email address. Or even a last name. So unless somebody out there is sending death threats to everybody named 'Christopher' in the whole world, you are clearly, as always, full of shit. STFU and go away, pedo.--Buffy the Apostrophe Slayer (talk) 09:16, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I would like to see this happen. Can you imagine it? "Hello, FBI? These guys on the internet are threatening me because I'm a pedophile. I have proo- Yes. Yes, a pedophile. What? No, I don't rape children, I wait for them to ask me! Trace my line!? What the fuck?" --Ntg85 04:20, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmmmm... I'm feeling lucky tonight. How bout a longrange ubernuking of not4chan from orbit? Or at least dropping the pedobomb. Phuzzy 04:33, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • ED does not condone nor support denial of service attacks. If you're going to attack the pedophiles please attack them personally and not their servers. Thank you. --[[User:Weev|weev 5>z u]] 04:56, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh god, like Iknow how to DoS Somebody. But still. Calling a pedo a pedo is fucking hilarious.Phuzzy 05:00, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST IS LIKE THE BEST FORM OF DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK --[[User:Weev|weev 5>z u]] 05:38, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • more like LOLLERCAUST am i rite? --Ntg85 03:23, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)
            • I can see that goint down well... "Dear Federal Authorities, I am a pedophile..." --Mister Six 07:42, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This guy is a pedo

But it's ok because he always waits for the children to make the first moves THANK YOU INTERNET

[edit] That's some fucked up shit

You're really fucked to take advantage of kids (IMHO). Maybe you can join Ohbutyouwillpet in prison. Lolz! --Awshit 08:52, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] /r/ cp

sup predator lol .--zeppy

  • Why is this page so popular? (Besides the fact that it's such lol drama) ~ Krade hi yo~ 22:53, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • A+++ drama will lulz again! Oopsz 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now he's on Wikipedia

I think I found Christopher, it seems he has been talking on the ED page on wikipedia, though he hasn't made any contributions, beyond a comment.--Azathar 17:20, 18 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was the same person as nathanr Samsara 01:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You actually have it right. They are more bigoted than controversial, are the home of ageist's, sexist's, and other -ist's and -ism's. Really, I don't understand why anyone would go to their page. Their arguements are flawed at best, and lies at worst

[edit] LOL

This made me lawl. Miltopia 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey guys I'm back what did I miss? Fubster 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The seminar where we explain to use asterix instead of colons. Also, I don't remember making the above post. Plz help. Miltopia 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope this phrase that i'm writing stays here forever --AnYoNe! 03:29, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Please please PLEASE tell me this is Popcultureicon...Duketuring 01:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

[edit] Songs

Post your favourite songs! I like 'This is my Private Life' by Oingo Boingo. I hate all their other music. Lolicyst 02:47, 1 October 2007 (CDT)

[edit] god the fack damn it chritopher wtf

oh my god, this is just great,more pedos around ED your user page is facking sick, you sick fuck furry lover Motherfucker.

[edit] man, you rock

man, i also love 3 years old little girls, fuck the haters. --Alguien! 17:18, 12 December 2007 (CST)

[edit] Hello, I'm Chris Hanson with Dateline NBC

Why don't you take a seat over there? --Furfagsmustdie 20:01, March 26 2008 (MDT)

  • Try spelling your own name right first, Chris mah boi. --ElStormo 21:05, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
Retrieved from "http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/User_talk:Christopher"
Personal tools