Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations

Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting Out : Creeps

sounds like the beliefs of a certain deceased cult leader!

from figaro - Friday, April 13, 2007
accessed 1227 times

I originally posted this in a myspace bulletin, and I didn't feel like going through and editing it.

I am all for freedom of speech, but what cost are we, and our children, paying for it. This was posted in a group I belong to, and I am posting it everywhere I can think of. How can anyone look at a 6 or 9 yr old little girl with lust. Don't sit there reading, and do nothing. The site exists. I looked, because I couldn't fathom it being true.

Recently, a very serious problem has been brought to the attention of several members of cafemom. It is a very heinous website called [Removed by MovingOn Admin. See note below.]. 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.

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, and sign the petition at 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.

[Note: MovingOn will not link to websites that promote pedophilia. To access the site mentioned above, please contact the author of this article through his profile.]

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from 'savage messiah' 2002 film
Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:05

(reply to this comment)
From figaro
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 15:57

what did that have to do with my post?(reply to this comment
from carly3548
Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:56

This is absolutely disgusting!!! Didn't Yahoo User Rooms shut down for this same reason? If I ever find out that these bastards contacted my girls, I would find out where he lived and make sure he doesn't have a penis to get hard! I make sure to watch everything my daughters do on the internet. Where are our lawmakers on this? Isn't this a reason we elected them? Who sponsers these sites? I will surely not buy their products.
(reply to this comment)
from vacuous
Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 18:21


In Britain so far as I'm aware online grooming of children was attempted to be tackled via s.15(1) of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act which held that:

A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if–
(a) having met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two earlier occasions, he–
(i) intentionally meets B, or
(ii) travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world.
(b) at the time, he intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,
(c) B is under 16, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.

The new offence is triable either way and punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment (s. 15(4)).
What the Act fails to cover is that a significant part of grooming (talking to children in sexually explicit language, sending children unappropriate images) can be considered legitimate in certain circumstances.
So long as the pedophile does not attempt to solicit the child to attend a meeting no nexus is crossed and no offence is committed.

(reply to this comment)
From sar
Monday, April 16, 2007, 01:44

Vac, you should have said no offence, under s.15, is committed. s.14 SOA would be more appropriate for this. It deals with inciting the commission of an offence. You must have come across the case of Gilick, where the doctor wasn't guilty of a similar offence on giving a child birth control pills, because he was doing it for her protection. If someone advises a child to engage in sexual activity or encourages it, they would be guilty of the s.14 offence. From the sound of the website the offence would cover the person who set up that website, except for the fact that they are probably not in the UK, and the UK courts don't have jurisdiction. I would imagine the laws would be slightly different in whatever state the person who set up the website resides. (reply to this comment
From vacuous
Monday, April 16, 2007, 07:52


I was mentioning the specific danger to which children are exposed on the internet in relation to 'grooming' and was examining and assessing the extent to which s.15 may fail to protect children in this matter.

Consequently I do not see how s.14 is "more appropriate for this"(you should have specified what you meant by "this") mentioning the law in relation to 'grooming' made no referral to the offence a person commits when setting up a website which advises or encourages a child to commit sexual activity (this being a separate offence).

In referring to legislation which may apply to any internet interaction with children falling within the UK's legal jurisdiction, s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 could be also be used in if there are undecent images of children. Other sexually explicit images may fall under s.12 of the 2003 act (causing a child to watch a sexual act)and could be well as, obviously, the s.14 offence you mentioned.

(reply to this comment

From sar
Monday, April 16, 2007, 12:48


"So long as the pedophile does not attempt to solicit the child to attend a meeting no nexus is crossed and no offence is committed." They may still be covered by s.14.

By "this" I meant the scenario where someone creates a website which encourages children to have sex. I mean "encourage" in the general and not the legal sense.
(reply to this comment

From vacuous
Monday, April 16, 2007, 13:38


"They may still be covered by s.14."

Obviously, but not in relation to the s.15 offence of "sexual grooming" (what the whole post was about).

(reply to this comment

From figaro
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 18:24

I don't understand that. the whole "B" thing has me confused.(reply to this comment
From vacuous
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 18:30

Read section c...(reply to this comment
From figaro
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 21:54

ah, I get it, "A" and "B" represent the parties involved. makes sense.(reply to this comment
from Big Sister
Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 10:11

Thank you for posting this. I recently attended a presentation at my child's school by a undercover police officer who poses as a 13 year old girl online in order to catch pedophiles on the internet. He now conducts almost non stop educational presentations both to kids (in the classroom) and their parents (after school). After both catching pedophiles and educating kids and parents about pedophiles, he concluded that the education was more efficient.

To illustrate his experience he logged into an AOL chat room named something like "Friendly Girls Club" (just made that up as an example). In his 13 year old girl disguise he waited....only 32 seconds before his first score, a 47 year old man, commenting on "her" cute pics. Within another 2 minutes he had so many chats going on the screen that he could hardly keep up. Every one of them was an adult male just wanting to chat with a 13 year old.

OK so long way of saying, I think it's all about education so kids know how to stay safe and parents know that have a responsibility to teach their children safety.
(reply to this comment)
From vacuous
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 18:04


While it is unclear how many children are at risk from grooming by internet pedophiles the studies so far are alarming. Research in the USA suggests that 5% and 20% of children online are being targeted for grooming (see ICF, 2001).

(reply to this comment

from sar
Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 04:31


I don't see how publicising the site will help to shut it down. I haven't seen the site, but its either illegal or not. Lots of people saying that it should be illegal doesn't make it any more illegal. You would just need one person who knows about the law on incitement in the host state to come up with a convincing argument as to how the person who made the site is guilty. I don't know whether you can bring private prosecutions in the states, but that would probably be a more effective avenue.
(reply to this comment)

From vacuous
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 17:42


Publicising the site, if it is illegal, may help to bring it to the attention of the "one person who knows about the law" and motivate that person to take action against it.

If the site is legal publicising it enough may bring unwanted gaps in the law to public attention. Popular demand to make it illegal could put pressure on the government to implement legislative measures to this effect.

(reply to this comment

From sar
Monday, April 16, 2007, 12:56

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it would be better to raise awareness of the issue rather than the particular site. Whoever made the site probably wants to make money. More people visiting the site means more sponsors, so more money. Laws made in response to public outcry in a particular situtation tend to be poorly thought out and often don't suit the purpose that they were made for. There is also a little rule of law and equality problem when legislating in respect of named persons, if you raise the general issue, this problem can be avoided. Anyway, those are my reasons why I think it would be better if it were a general campaign to change the law on site promoting peodophilia, rather than a campaign to shut that particular site.(reply to this comment
From figaro
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 16:05

the site is not to make money, its a site promoting the subculture of pedophiles. much like the family's site isn't to make money, but a PR front for the cult. these guys are just much more up front about themselves the TF is.

i don't think that any company would want to advertise on a site such as this, it would be very bad PR for the company. but then again, who knows...(reply to this comment
From vacuous
Monday, April 16, 2007, 13:41

Exactly, thats why a campaign to shut down the particular site might be just the sort of catalyst needed to jump-start a general campaign to change the law.(reply to this comment
From figaro
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 18:19

exactly what i was about to say!(reply to this comment
from Oddman
Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 00:47


I'm not going to comment on this article itself, or the site in question, as I haven't really seen the site. I'm not exactly keen to. I have seen the site, and confirm it does exist. The issue is that this argument can quickly shift from discussing the criminal manifestations of pedophilia and the harmful effects, to discussing the mentality and appetites of people who are attracted to younger girls. The thoughts and appetites in themselves are not criminal, and unless manifested in actions, cannot be deemed harmful. I'll have an opinion on the site and the views expressed there only after I've read the site. Like I said, I'm not keen to.

I did browse through the Sugar and Spice pages, and do believe they are aimed at a very young target audience, and have the effect of reducing or lowering young girls fear or defenses against pedophiles. I'll not comment further on that, as taking a position on an issue without investigating is a sure fire recipe for disastrous embarrasment.

One thing I did note though, and can comment on, is that the site lists the legal age of consent in Japan as 13. While I doubt few people who frequent this site have the appetite for sexual interactions with 13 year olds, any venue is a good venue when it comes to raising awareness. In Japan, there are a number of different laws that protect children from criminal abuse. Of these, those that concern sex -that I can think of- are, (Don't quote me on this)

Rape in the first degree - Rape of a woman, involving the application of force or intimidation.

Rape in the second degree - Rape of a woman, where the woman is not capable of making sound judgement or is not capable of displaying non-consent. I.e. under the influence of drugs or alcohol, asleep, comatose, impaired.

Statutory rape in Japan applies to females 12 years and younger. Sexual intercourse with a female 12 years or younger is classified as rape, regardless of consent.

I don't suppose I need to point out that this threshold is very low compared to most other first world countries. It's also notable that the ridiculous laws of Japan limit rape to phallic penetration of the vagina. There is even a slight difference in classification, based on whether the male has ejaculated or not. Anal rape, rape with an object, rape by a woman, rape of a man, all fall under forcible indecency. As rape cannot be established without an accusation by the victim, it is believed that many cases of rape remain in the dark, and rape statistics in Japan are higher than believed. (In the case of multiple rape, i.e. a gangbang, or in the case of rape & burglary, one can be charged without the presence of a victim.)

Lewd interactions with a minor. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
This applies to lewd and sexual interactions with a "child". A "Child" is defined as 17 years old and younger. Strangely, this is different from "minor", which is 19 years old and younger. This was part of a newer drive to protect children against sex crimes, and applies to sexual interactions that do not include unconsensual penetration of the female sexual organs, and also covers as wide as exposing a child to displays of indecency, i.e. showing a child acts of sex or pornography.

Child Prostitution - Selling
Child Prostitution - Purchasing
This applies to the prostitution of a "child" and includes where remuneration takes forms other than cash. I.e. if you pay a child's phone bill or buy her a dress in exchange for sex, it still constitutes child prostitution. The charges still apply if you promise remuneration, but subsequently withhold it. In Japan this doesn't constitute rape. In the case of an adult, it constitutes neither rape or prostitution. (Japanese laws regarding prostitution do not restrict the act of trading sex for money or reward, but rather only the public soliciting of prostitution, and the running of brothels.) So basically, if a woman is a privately operating prostitute, and you refuse to pay her, she can't collect it through court, and it's considered a private issue, which police won't get involved in. Wipe that smirk of your face asshole, that's what we got the Yakuza for. No whore in her right mind operates without the protection of a Yakuza clan. If you think you can get away with not paying a whore her dues, you better have an appetite for pain. In regards to child prostitution, a Japanese national can be charged even if the offense takes place overseas.

Child Pornography
The possession, trading, and selling or photographic images of "children".

So yes, the laws in Japan are tame. But anyway, my point was, - again, although I doubt that movingon regulars have such appetites- the age 13 is only the threshhold for statutory rape. If you do engage in sexual interactions with a child 17 years or younger, you very well may be charged for indecent or lewd interactions with a child, and though the charges are lighter, your ass may still be thrown in the pig sty where it belongs. But hey predators, be happy, look on the bright side. There is 0 chance of you getting "raped" in a Japanese prison. Some dude might shove his man meat or a soap bar up your anal orifice, but you won't ever be "raped". Happy travelling.
(reply to this comment)

From figaro
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 18:08

that was very interesting. the laws in japan are odd indeed, but at least they have them. are they enforced well?(reply to this comment
From sar
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 04:33

That was really interesting, odd.(reply to this comment
from PopNFresh
Sunday, April 15, 2007 - 00:09


Awhile ago I read about how "legal" websites that promote illegal activities (really idiotic imo) can be taken down by private parties.

I'm not entirely sure how this works, but the idea was that every website has to have a physical address tied to it, which in case of illegal activities must be reported to requesting authorities. This address can be shielded from the public, but if the police ever needed to know, it has to be correct. The person who wrote the article said they contacted the host or registration company or whatever to say that although they were not entitled to the actual address, the content of the site led them to believe that it was promoting illegal activities, and kindly requested that the host company confirm that the physical address it was registered to be verified.

This appealing letter usually put the situation in the hands of individual people behind the company instead of law enforcement who are forced to go by the letter of the law. The company would then do an address verification and if it didn't get a positive response, it would take the website down and lock the domain name. If the address did in fact check out, the person who made the request would then notify some law enforcement agencies that they believed, based on the content of the website that the owner of the site was engaged in illegal activities and provided the host or registration company name as reference to obtain the address.

From what it seemed, this individual was quite successful in taking down hundreds of websites. I don't really know the details, but perhaps someone else does. It would be interested to see if something like that would work for whatever website you are talking about.

I have no desire to know the name of the website you are talking about, and I hope I never stumble upon it. By your description of it I felt sick to my stomach, and I hope it goes down in flames as well as the people who support it.
(reply to this comment)

From figaro
Sunday, April 15, 2007, 18:18

If you actually go to the website its even more disturbing. its set up to be very tranquil and beautiful. they have poetry and all sorts of ways of attempting to put a positive and beautiful spin on something so very disgusting.

I just don't understand how someone could have a sexual attraction to someone that young. they don't even have breasts so to me thats almost like having a sexual attraction to an animal. (I'm not saying kids are like animals, I'm just saying that they don't have the sexual attributes that make adults appealing, and there for are as non sexy as an animal as far as I'm concerned. but thats just my opinion!)

Plus, since they aren't physically ready for penetration they will be torn and start badly bleeding during the act, and how could someone enjoy that when the other person will be in such obvious pain? I don't understand it, nor do I wish to.(reply to this comment

My Stuff

log in here
to post or update your articles


84 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores

I think, therefore I left

Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas

Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact:] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]