1 There are uncounted millions of blogs on Blogger. I can't imagine Google could devote time to reading every last one of them. That said, I did hit the nice Flag button on each of those blogs, which if enough people do that the blogs will get pulled out of the directory, or even yanked off the net entirely.

2 so sicky me no clicky.

3 Well, Michael, someone has to see these blogs before they are approved. Who the hell is it? And he or she should be fired. And these pedophile bastards should be jailed, or worse. I've got an 11-year old daughter, and frankly, I'm tired of this crap. An example needs to be made. But everyone is too damn busy worried about the rights of illegal aliens to care. That's what this country has turned into. Pathetic!

4 Huh? Nobody approves blogs before they go online. If there were a blog censor, I don't think they WOULD approve my blog. I use the word "stupid" in combination with "socialist" too much.

5 Isn't Google's motto Do No Evil? They can throw resources behind censoring search results in China, but not behind keeping the NAMBLA and the like away.

6 No, no one approves the blogs, but how come MY blog gets the warning page and not a NAMBLA blog?

7 ALL pedophiles should either have it chopped the f*** off OR hung by the balls and used for a pinyotta by their victims.

8 Thank you so much for picking up this story, I know if we could get more bloggers involved in exposing this trash, we could make the blogosphere safer for everyone! I do have a podcast that you may also listen to if you're interested. I'm going to be following this, as well as what's happening on My Space. http://sharp.libsyn.com You guys rock!

9 Rusty, beware caching these pages, you could be classed as a pedophile as well when somone investigates them. I also agree that this is something that should not be on the web but that is what you get for freedom of expression sadly... somone somewhere always exploits the freedoms given them.

10 I was just about to post what Rob said. Remember, when they arrested Pete Townsend, he was just investigating this. That usually is a lie, but when they searched his home and computer, it turned out to be true. But I wouldn't want any of those sites in my computer's memory. I also don't think it is impossible (and may even be a good idea) that some of those sites are monitored by the FBI. So many childkillers surf first, kill later, that it wouldn't be a bad tactic.

11 Thanks for the warning guys about caching the web page. I want it cached to show the world what these people say when they think no one is looking, as well as to help law enforcement should the need arise. Google's cache is purged and updated periodically, so there is more than a fair chance that if some one were to investigate these pervs in the future that they would have no online evidence. Anyway, the cache of the online perversions isn't on my computer, it's on our webserver.

12 Rusty, the MAMBLA is part of the global agenda. For example, homo sex, and marriage is OK, but if you say it is bad behavior, that would be hate speech. Whatever feels good is OK, but if you set limits, or place morality into the argument, then you will be marginalized. We are under attack on all fronts. Child sex offenders should be killed, and dumped into the river, so turtles, and fish can eat.

13 Leatherneck, I was thinking that buzzards need to eat, too.

14 J.J., You're right. I forgot about the buzzards. Perhaps, sometimes a body will wash up on a sand bank, and the buzzards can get a little.

15 You might have linked it, and I just missed it, but another one of the lil sickos has this profile, he's a member of one multimember blog Notice the young boy in his profile pic...

16 You might have linked it, and I just missed it, but another one of the lil sickos has this profile, he's a member of one multimember blog Notice the young boy in his profile pic... http://www.blogger.com/profile/14823928

17 J.J., Leatherneck, We propose the the use of the Humane Society of Humane Relocation of NAMBLA and Similar Organizations and Persons™. HSHRNSOP™ for short. The goal of this organization is to recognize the level of humanity of these people and provide them a place to be free of repression and societal prejudice. We will humanely provide them transport to our humane heavy lift vehicles (bought for cheap from humane former GLORIOUS MOTHERLAND). The heavy lift vehicles will then lift off, in the most humane and environmentally friendly way possible, beginning their humane trip to freedom. These colonists will enjoy their new lives; forging bold new frontiers and societies as they head coreward in the Sol sytem. They will enjoying long and fruitful lives cultivating the surface of the sun. You can tell we are completely seriou sand really do care because of how many times we said "humane". Sincerely, Borad of Directors HSHRNSOP™

18 Is this something we should tell the FBI about? Maybe they can investigate and prosecute these evil people.

19 ----Some of the authors of both of the above blogs have pictures of very young children on their blogger profile pages. Here & Here. Oh, forgive me for interrupting this almighty hysterical dance my friends. A Blogger has face pictures of young children on his Blog? Shock horror. Let's arrest half the Blogging world, who have pictures of Babys on their photo Blog. So a Blogger has pictures of Young Boys on their Blog? That is a crime now is it? Infact, if you look closer and actually "read" these Blogs (something which few people are doing) the Blonde Boy on the first link, is the Blogger "Himself" as a Boy. Instead, people are just going to these Blogs in frenzied outrage, and commenting on what they've been "told" the Blogs are all about. So far, not one person (out of countless I have asked) has been able to show me any evidence of the accusations thrown against these Bloggers and their Blogs. All I see, is a campaign led by right wing Christian fundamentalists who hate homosexuality (and openly admit it) throwing accusations of "Molestation", "Rape", and "Predators" at these Bloggers, and asking Google to seriously listen to demands they are shut down,when there is no proof to back them up. Anyone who is honest, will find this smear campaign laughable, and capitalizing on the genuine fears that protective parents have of "actual" sexual criminals. All I see so far, is a smear campaign. A pack of lies designed to erase people who have thoughts and ideas that happen to "morally" objectionable to the vast majority. By all means despise their views, and tell them so. When you seek the erasure of their views though, all you do is show facist intolerant behaviour, and total disregard for the freedoms so many of you claim to cherish.

20 Uh.....are you stupid? These sites advocate sex with children. Sex. With. Children. Then, they have links to sites with images with children and use images of children as their own avatar. Idiot.

21 Thank you for exposing these scumbag child molesters. Many of your links, a few of us bloggers also discovered from the original blog. This is more than disgusting, like you said...this will make you freakin speechless. I linked your blog via Jay's, I hope you do not mind. Hopefully these bastards will be shutdown soon. We even discovered where they are connected to a chat room...from all the links listed above. BC Boy Chat. It is extremely disturbing!!

22 The blog has been removed! I do not know if it was Google or the perps that did it, but it is gone. Chalk another one up for the blogosphere!

23 LOL! This is rich! You go on harping about how evil pedophiles are on a blog that features a quote by Thomas Mann, author of one of the best-known pedophile novellas -- Death in Venice -- of all time! Lindsay Ashford

24 Excuse me, Rusty. There's something I'm a little confused with in regards to your blog. You link to Modern Boylove and you claim the site is glorifying the rape of a 7yo. I had a good look, and all that I could find anything to do with a 7yo was about a boy the man seemed to have a friendship with. Could you point out an example where this blogger's glorifying rape? Lest you be seen as being sensationalistic, much like 'blogs'' enemy at essence, mainstream media. Thanks

25 hey guess what. i love children in so many ways, including sexually. and guess what--i don't rape or molest. you ARE ALL BRAINWASHED MORONS and you are HURTING INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS. please open your mind and get a f*cking clue. and yeah, you totally misrepresented that 7yo raped boy thing. no mention of any kind of rape, you IDIOT.

26 COMMON PROBLEMS OF SEX WITH CHILDREN -- A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE G.N.A.A. (Gay Nigger Association of America) A practical problem of sex with children is physical. It is very important to understand that adults are much bigger than kids. Obviously commmon sense must be used. The size differences CAN be dealt with and sex can be accomplished without harming a child physically. This mostly applies to sex with very young girls. It is probably not advisable for adult male pedophiles to even attempt vaginal penetration with a girl until at least age 9. A girl much below that age is not able in many cases able to handle an adult penis (especially if one has a large penis) being inserted in her vagina. She is often simply too small to take it all the way in easily without pain. The girl may not enjoy full-insertion intercourse no matter how gentle, as she simply is too small & cannot handle the sensation of the penis being fully inserted and withdrawn repeatedly as an adult female can easily allow. Your erect penis may also look HUGE to her, causing apprehension. She may also have an intact hymen, & dealing with this is tricky. You should proceed with intercourse VERY carefully or not at all since you can hurt her quite easily even if you are extra gentle-she is NOT a woman-remember that! In any case, if she becomes familiar with the concept of intercourse, she may ask you to do it. I advise you to not give into her pleading or if so use judgement and proceed VERY carefully and GENTLY. You may have to settle for partial insertion to satisfy her wishes without actually having real intercourse. This way is a safer compromise and with it she can see what it is like sort of without injuring her.

27 Heh, what would a gay nigger know about having sex with little girls?

28 I once found it ironic that the vast majority of people who espouse hatred identify as conservative Christians. No more. I've realized that it is in keeping with the fundamentalist agenda to create stark lines between good and evil and to perpetuate the 'us and them' mentality. Jesus preached love for all mankind, but few of his followers adhere to this teaching these days. Not surprising--the lifestyle Jesus advocated was one humility, something few conservatives understand. I am not a religious person, but I think Jesus is onto something there. In fact, every major religion under the sun has some version of the Kant's Categorical Imperative (i.e. the Golden Rule)--Do unto others . . . Hmm, there's a thought. What I would do is have people explain their position calmly and logically, something ped-haters seem incapable of. Again, not surprising--realizing they have no real argument, ped-haters resort to fear-mongering, lies, and hatred. It's an old story--Jews, blacks, gays, have all been persecuted in their time simply for existing, whether they've done anything wrong or not. I am a pedophile (meaning I am attracted to children, period); this says nothing about whether I am or am not inclined to molest a child . . . or even have any sexual contact with them whatsoever. The media purposely confuses the terms 'pedophile' and 'child molester' and blatantly distorts the reality--I know, because I have a degree in journalism. In the media biz, we have a term for this 'us and them' approach to reporting--its called the game schema, and it serves the bottom line very well. So, I am a ped, or girl lover, as we prefer to be called. I have never molested and never will. I have outed myself to the world to prove this point, as, if I had any intention of molesting a child, I have only made it 100 times harder to do so by stepping out of the shadows. I do not adhere to any of the stereotypes about 'our kind'--I don't collect child porn, I don't hang out at parks or playgrounds or around schoolyards, I don't seek children out in any way, shape or form. The only children I'm really around on a regular basis are relatives, and even then rarely. I don't fear intimacy with women--I'm simply not attracted to them. Never have been. I knew in 6th grade what my orientation was, or strongly suspected it. By high school I was absolutely certain. I was around many children in those years, babysitting more than a few, but never once felt the urge to molest or rape any of them. Many of them I am still friends with. If you want to report me, feel free. I'm not a criminal. Nor am I a coward. If you want to come take me out of the world, feel free to try. I'll give you my home address if you ask for it. But I promise I won't make it easy for you. Even so, I don't hate you any more than I fear you. I only pity you--hate is far more destructive to the hater in the long run than to the object of that hatred. ;-)

29 Okay, I've decided to do my job as the Idiot-to-English translator. ---------------------------------- “This is my trying to be really witty, and failing. I’m upset that Google is intolerant to my one-person hate group, and tolerant to people who espouse love. I hate to link to this site because I hate people who think love is a good thing. According to this article, the site removed a bunch of posts advocating love after a pseudo-Christian idiot blasted them for the very thing her religion supposedly supports: love. Funny how I somehow think I’m “exposing” stuff that’s been online all along, isn’t it? Even though people who post things on the internet kinda do so for the very purpose of other people seeing it, I want to feel like a private investigator or something, because I think I’m way more clever than I actually am and it’s hard for me to believe that every-freakin-one can already find such things easily if they just use a search engine. Love is sooo disgusting! Ewwww! Everyone who thinks love is the ultimate good should die! What kind of idiot would come up with something like that?? Jesus is horrible, and so is Martin Luther King, those freaks… Love sucks! “If anyone thinks somebody is hot, and I don’t, they must be wrong, and they must be sickos. If I’m straight, this means gays. If I’m gay, this means straight folks. If I’m only attracted to people near my age, this means everyone who isn’t. Everyone should be attracted to adults! Except kids. If kids are attracted to adults, they’re sickos. Why, you ask? That’s just how it is… don’t ask because I don’t have a good enough grasp on logic to explain.” These bloggers here advocate child rape! And by “rape” I mean “hanging out without any sexual interaction”. I think it’s way fun to call everyone I don’t like a rapist, regardless of whether or not they actually are.” And when anyone does something I don’t like, I also compare them to mass murderers. Dude, did you know that this one murderer was a nurse? And she poisoned people? So all nurses are probably serial killers who want to poison people… and all teachers are probably child-rapists… and all farmers probably want to rape the sheep…” PS: I just love it when people who claim to care about civil rights are actually hypocritical lying agenda pushers.” ----------------------------------------- There ya go… Now it’s all in perfectly clear English. And while I had a very fun time doing the translation… I urge everyone else to be equally critical of what this person is saying. Take a look at the links he provides and you’ll see he’s a one-man hate group trashing on people who simply believe love=good and that children are fully formed human beings with their own sexuality. By the way - I’m a sixteen-year-old girl. I have always been a sexual being, and dislike it when people try to tell me I don’t have the right to my own body. I felt this way when I was nine, and I feel this way now. If you think you have a right to tell me or anyone else underage that we shouldn’t be with someone older, even if they are caring, intelligent, and all-around good people, then the world would truly be a better place without you.

30 Quoting Thomas Mann? Try reading 'Death in Venince'. NAMBLA is a nearly defunct and ineffective organization. Very few self identifying pedophiles have anything whatsoever to do with them, yet their name is raised to produce to fear of some sort of organized, monolithic threat.

31 I was a child abuse investigator for years. I've seen what can happen to children in the shadows and in the light of day. I say let's make as much room for the pedophiles as they think they want. Let's bring them out into the daylight...let them identify themselves...we need to know who they are so the kids will know to avoid them. There are child advocates who follow the pedophile message boards and thus keep up with the newest ideas and MO's. Sometimes the pedophiles slip up and give one too many clues about themselves and they're caught but generally they travel under the cloak of anonymizers and nicknames and are very difficult to ID. The law enforcement agents assigned to child sex crimes will tell you that tracking pedophiles on the web, on boards or blogs, is not only tedious, it's generally fruitless. Their time is better spent somewhere else. I don't doubt these assertions. The really sleazy stuff...the child porn and personal meetings between pedophiles...is done so far under the radar, it's extremely difficult to detect and invade. So let's encourage these folks to come out into the light and fly where they can be detected, identified, and protected against. Driving them further underground isn't the answer...it just makes them more difficult to find, ID and take action against if necessary. Give them their voice...give them a T-shirt...give them a cap with a big purple "P" on it. Turning on the lights always wins against the monsters in the closet.

32 Lysi, The problem is coerced and non-consentual sex. Adult-child sex is not necessarily coercive or non-consentual. Some pedophiles sexually abuse children. On the other hand, some Christians sexually abuse children. That does not mean that there is something about Christians or pedophiles that makes them a danger to children. Let's be against coercive sex in general instead of ragging on pedophiles, most of whom have no intention of sexually abusing kids. Pedophiles are not monsters, they are humans. They need respect and love like everyone else.

33 Lysi, I'm interested to know if you have control over everyone elses actions. For you to allow pedophiles to out themselves in a safe environment, but to enforce every pedo-hating individual out there would be another entirely almost impossibly difficult thing to do. I'm sorry, that's just not a valid option. That would be like just telling all the gays in the 1950s to just 'come out' and get it off their chest. Or the nazis telling a family of hiding Jews to just come out and everything will be fine. 'Sometimes the pedophiles slip up and give one too many clues about themselves and they're caught but generally they travel under the cloak of anonymizers and nicknames and are very difficult to ID' You say this, but you make the somewhat incorrect assumption that every pedophile is somehow guilty. Almost as if pedophilia itself is a crime, when at this point in time at least it is the action or collection of pornography that would get him/her in trouble. A number of these people on the known websites are absolutely law-abiding. If there's any reason to believe there's anything illegal going on, and the police don't think they'll be able to make any individual arrests, they'll simply shut down the site. You also make the incorrect assumption that every pedophile needs protecting against, as if each one intends to hurt children. Also, how do you intend to protect people from these pedophiles? You say you would like to see them given the societal freedom of being able to integrate publicly into the community, but how are you going to protect people from them, and how are you going to protect them from people?

34 If a pedophile gives away too much info and gets caught, he's getting caught doing something illegal. There's no sense in catching someone who's not, is there? The "too much info" includes descriptions of illegal acts and comes from a long period of observation and evidence-gathering. It's not a snap decision based only on the proclamation that someone is a pedophile. We all know that not all pedophiles actually harm children. We also know that pedophiles, by their own admission, are sexually attracted to children, many, if not most, exclusively, and I'd say that warrants watching. A child is more likely to be harmed by someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to children than someone who's exclusively sexually attracted to adults. Duh. Why not invite the pedophiles to come on out? The tide has turned quite positively toward GLBTs in the last several years. Would it have turned the same way in the 50's? I don't know but I sure wouldn't have encouraged anyone to stay in the closet any more then than I would now. I've got several friends who are out in varying degrees, and I don't think there was ever a date set in the 50's for the outing to begin...like on June 2, 1972 the tide's going to turn and we're going to come out in order of north to south and east to west. The movement formed and did what movements do over time. The pedophiles say, in more than one place on the web, that they're ready to be a public movement. I'd say they're making the choice to come out. They're saying they want recognition...rights...respect. Fine! But don't forget that with the recognition, rights and respect, there comes responsibility, a great deal of responsibility. I don't know how they'll protect themselves. I'm sure that as with every social movement there will be casualties...martyrs if you will. But since they're the ones insisting that they want their place in society, I guess you need to ask them how then intend to protect themselves. They can ask the GLBT activists, the civil rights activists, activists from any social movement and learn from them. Perhaps the law will give them "protected class" status although that seems unlikely given the conservative leanings of the US Supreme Ct. but we're all going to be forced to give up more rights with the Roberts court. Perhaps we need more liberals in the legislature. I'm just saying that wanting to jerk every pedophile board and blog off the net isn't necessarily a smart idea. Forcing the movement further underground isn't going to benefit anyone. But this silly sh*t of acting like pets running in and out of the house through the pet door makes me want to say, "Come out or stay in...take your pick. You can't have it both ways." With pets, the humans get to make the ultimate decision. But pedophiles aren't pets...they're people too. So they can decide to come out or not...they can't have it both ways but it's their choice.

35 "A child is more likely to be harmed by someone who is exclusively sexually attracted to children than someone who's exclusively sexualy attracted to adults. Duh." Ironically, this is an astoundingly untrue statement. The truth is over 80% of child molesters are NOT primarily attracted to children. It's true!

36 I think the statement that I made, the one that you've quoted accurately, said "exclusively attracted to adults."

37 Child more likely to be harmed by those with sexual attraction to them? Most of the children I hear of being harmed are victims of physical abuse, neglect, drugs, etc. Children are most likely to be harmed by people with no sexual motivation toward them at all. Even sexual abuse is often commited by those with no sexual attraction toward children. "1. Child sexual offenders must be differentiated from pedophiles. a. A child sexual offender has committed a criminal act. He may or may or may not be a pedophile. It is adult/child sexual contact that is against the law. b. A pedophile has an anomalous sexual preference. If a pedophile never acts on his impulses, he is not a sex offender." http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/hungary7.htm

38 I am having trouble posting a reply because it is said to have questionable content every time I hit "post". It has no curse words - it is simply an opinion. For all those reading this blog: see what sort of censorship is taking place. You are not hearing both sides accurately because much of what needs to be said is being blocked.

39 Lysi, I tried to post a reply to you, but all replies with certain words are being blocked now. Please follow the link and you may read my response:

40 Oops, here's the URL: http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=26682638&postID=114564522859059258&r=ok

41 "We are ONLY here for the ONEs WE LOVE! To care for them and their interests!" "REMEMBER to LOVE your boy, YF and SYF...and others Remember to LOVE your wives, children, neighbors" and... "These bloggers here advocate child rape!" I'm sorry, is it just me, or do I not see a connection between "we are here to take care of them and their interests"... and "love your special young friends, your wives, children, neighbors..."... and "they support child rape!" Who's really talking about rape here? The so-called "Child molestors" or the so called "child protectors"... Advocating child rape would sound like this: "We are boylovers and we advocate the rape of children." It sounds more like they are advocating LOVE.

42 It appears the anti-pedo firestorm is over and people couldn't care less about "protecting kids" anymore... Shows how much these blogging PURITANS really want to protect kids... sounds more like they just want to torch someone. You've all got your priorities backwards!

43 What is it with all you? You can't really decide what's right or wrong because you don't know. All you know is what you find "disgusting" or distasteful and act as though you never entertained a similar emotion or attraction yourselves, ever. Liars. Just because you find boylove distasteful doesn't make it wrong. Why? Because it's only logical. Even "weird" isn't wrong. In fact you have to go pretty far in the realm of sex to actually do anything wrong because lets remember, sex is good. Sex is about affection and good things. And if you think it's "dirty" you're probably one of those swaggering apes that think the more sex a guy has the more of a man he is and a woman is a slut and a whore if she isn't chaste are "pure". Power imbalance my ass. Is the man in Venezuela who cut his girlfriends little boys penis off because she wouldn't give him some of her paycheck money so he could buy a motorcycle a saint because he's straight? Go to Hell all of you straight assholes, you make me sick.

44 This is for all the UNeducated, UNinformed and brainwashed posters above (you know who are): There are no absolute definitions of what is right and what is wrong...societies and individuals are constantly changing and reviewing what they deem to be right or wrong...even laws cannot be held to be absolute measures of something being right or wrong...later generations often repeal laws held sacrosanct in earlier times. Just because something is deemed illegal does not mean it is inherently wrong or even 'bad/evil' in and of itself. Slavery has been legal in societies throughout history and many at the time deemed it right, even ethically right! Even Jesus, supposedly the greatest teacher of all time told slaves to keep their place (lest they upset the balance of society and possibly bring about a greater suffering for all?) If the slaves are housed, fed, clothed and not beaten and the alternative is living on the street...which case is more right, more wrong, even on ethical grounds? Sorry...I digress... Thus it is pointless to debate about the rightness or wrongness of an action...ethical arguments would be more interesting (but probably also server little purpose in the debate over adult/child sex). Here are some prime examples of how "views" and "laws" have changed over time: Orthodox Jews permit a girl to be married at age 3, but consummation awaits her having two pubic hairs or attaining age 12. Roman and Byzantine law permitted marriage to girls at 12 and boys at 14 (Lascaratos & Poulakou-Rebelakou, 2000). Old English law recognized consent to sex with the opposite sex by a girl of 10 or a boy of 13, and the 1900 U.S. Census had a married and working category for girls aged 10-15. Surely, all the men who lived under these laws and had sex with girls that we consider underage, did not have a 'disorder' of 'pedophilia.' Those who violate their society's age of consent laws are engaging in criminality, but the proportion of these criminals who have a 'disorder' is questionable. from a report by the Family Research Institute. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_foster-parent-molestation.html In conclusion, the only logical debate over the issue must be over one of consent...and how does one determine that? Age of consent laws have varied enormously over time and even today vary enormously across the world...they are merely an attemp to protect children from exploitation in whatever form. Who can truly determine whether an experience is right or wrong for one individual other than that individual...and even then, that individual may indeed change their opinion at a later date in either direction. And who can say when a child has the ability to assert their human rights as an individual when we all mature at different rates? There are no easy answers. The debate will contine, as it has for thousands of years. If you know anything about history you should know that adult/child sex is as prevalent now as it has ever been. It has manifested itself in virtually every society we have any knowledge about...does that mean its normal? 'Normal' is only what society deems acceptable at the time for its members and that is in constant change. Thus, the only measurement you can truly apply to adult/child sex is whether it is good or bad for the individuals involved - but how do you apply such an 'evaluation' to something as complex as human relationships...even adult-adult relationships can be seen as hugely beneficial to one partner and not the other, when viewed by outsiders...but if both partners say they are gaining from the relationship, and feel loved, cherished and are growing as human beings...then it's no business to outsiders. The problem is basically one of consent, and when does a human have the ability to grant consent to another human. Surely that can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Or one could argue that if you have started puberty, then by definition you are able to have sex and therefore have the right to choose who you have sex with. Who knows? I certainly don't. I do know one thing though: hatred has never contributed anything constructive to human societies, individuals or the progress of the human race towards greater understanding of one another; hatred only adds to the total sum of human suffering...and there has been way to much of that already.

45 I blogged about this awhile ago. I have yet to follow up with Stacy, but am I understanding right that blogger removed the page?