Holy ****, did anyone see the latest Something Awful weekend web?

[Az]

Well, I realize you being defensive on the gay 'cures', since many people try to describe homosexualism as something that is illegitimate, and thus any such cure may be forced on homosexuals, I don't think that personal traits, and characteristics, such as this are unchangeable. People have known to have much bigger shifts in life, due cataclismic events. I am not sure whether this is as rigid as people believe.

[Az]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You mean the Catholic priests?

[Spiffor]

I have no problem with the idea of letting pedophiles in the closet.
I personally believe most of us are at least a bit flexible in sexual orientation (and Asher, a former bi, who calls us "X-pint gay" would agree), and can live a tolerable yet suboptimal sexual life.

In one of the posts showed by SA, there was this guy worrying he still felt attracted to a 15 year old boy, whom he knew when he was 11. This shows that even this guy can be attracted by more adult builds.

Expose them to hot chicks / studs, that's the ticket.

[Thorn]

They are people too you know, so long as they aren't hurting other people....

[JohnT]

People defending pedophiles. Never thought I'd live to see the day.

[Space05us]

They are people too you know, so long as they aren't hurting other people....

Like I said, the second they abuse a child they deserve death. Not necessarily a needle either. More preferably the mother of the child swinging a baseball bat to thier nutsack.

[Spiffor]

JohnT:
That's because you fall in the trap of hating several different things indiscriminately. I don't think anybody defends child molesters here. But pedophilia is far more complex than only child-molestation. The word (wrongfully) encompasses a variety of practices and attractions that are 1. not the same, and 2. not of the same gravity.

Unfortunately, the media hysteria makes it so that whomever feels attraction toward children is immediately identified with the scum that rapes, tortures and kills children

[JohnT]

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1906
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

From the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'd prefer the OED, but they're not online. At least for free, that is.

[Spiffor]

JohnT:
Yes. And a question: imagine a guy who feels attracted toward children, but refuses to act on this attraction and copes with it... Is this guy the same as another one who preys on children, absucts them, and rapes them before the kill?

I think the first one needs help. I see pedophilia as a handicap similar to alcoholism. This is why I despise the feelgood exercize that are these pedophilia forums so much.

[mrmitchell]

Frenchie

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor
JohnT:
Yes. And a question: imagine a guy who feels attracted toward children, but refuses to act on this attraction and copes with it... Is this guy the same as another one who preys on children, absucts them, and rapes them before the kill?

I think the first one needs help. I see pedophilia as a handicap similar to alcoholism. This is why I despise the feelgood exercize that are these pedophilia forums so much.

No action, no crime. No action, not a pedophiliac. If you have a person whom, at the age of 50, is still a virgin, are they straight, gay, or asexual?

Main Entry: asex·u·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1830
1 : lacking sex or functional sex organs
2 a : involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or germ cells b : produced by asexual reproduction
3 : devoid of sexuality

[Jon Miller]

what do they masturbate to?

if nothing than asexual

otherwise not

Jon Miller

[JohnT]

Good point. But, by their actions (or lack of), one can easily describe them as "asexual".

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
Good point. But, by their actions (or lack of), one can easily describe them as "asexual".

No, you can't.

Did you not even read your own definition? devoid of sexuality. There is a world of difference between that and being a virgin. Just because they don't act on their sexuality does not mean they are devoid of it.

[JohnT]

The primary definition (#1) was "lacking sex." Pick and choose all you want, but, at worst, it looks as if the EB was covering all bases with that definition.